We welcome your comments and postings on our blog

Monday, June 17, 2019

Andy Levin on Impeachment

When I was sworn into the 116th Congress, I took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution. It's an oath I don't take lightly.
 
That's why I believe that the House must open an impeachment inquiry into the conduct of President Donald J. Trump. If you agree, add your name here.
 
Let me take a few moments to explain because it's important for you to understand how I arrived at this decision:
 
The evidence is clear that Mr. Trump has been violating the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution every day since he took office. The intermingling of his business dealings with governance and his profiting off his office is beyond improper. According to a recent analysis from  NBC News, representatives of 22 — 22! — different foreign governments have spent money at properties owned by the Trump Organization since 2017.
 
What's more — his refusal to share information about his taxes, which prevents the public from knowing the nature and extent of his conflicts of interest.  
 
As the Mueller Report makes clear, on more than ten occasions, the President obstructed justice or sought to obstruct justice — including by firing or attempting to fire people who were investigating him. And his brazen attitude towards foreign interference in our election process chills me to the bone — from his invitation to Vladimir Putin to meddle during 2016 to his comments this week about the 2020 election.
 
Until today, I have maintained the position that we should neither rush to impeach President Trump nor take impeachment off the table. However, I believe that even if our appeals to the courts continue to succeed, they will follow a timeline far too slow to meet the needs of the American people for truth and justice. 
 
After extensive discussion with colleagues on the committees of jurisdiction over various investigations, I have concluded that the only way to get to the bottom of Mr. Trump's activities and inform the public about what we learn is to consolidate and expedite the process through one select committee with the focus, power, and urgency that come with an impeachment inquiry.
 
 
Thank you for taking action on this,
 
Andy Levin

Thursday, June 13, 2019

Legacy of the Trump Presidency

What will be the legacy of the Trump Presidency?
There will likely be many, few of them good, but I think the worst (for Republicans in general and conservative evangelicals in particular, anyway) is that they have lost any moral high ground they were ever able to claim. Democrats, if their silly hearts ever led them to do so, could nominate a Harvey Weinstein candidate with a Bill Cosby running mate, and the Republicans would not be able to say a single word, not and be taken seriously, anyway. In his article, A Comprehensive List of Things Republicans Can No Longer Legitimately Criticize Thanks to Trump, here are a few of the things John Ziegler came up with:

Having no political experience.
Having no military experience.
Having actively dodged a war.
Having compared avoiding sexual diseases during a promiscuous period to going to war.
Having disparaged a war hero for having been captured.
Having claimed to have more military knowledge than our generals.
Having admitted to getting their military knowledge from watching TV.
Having been divorced, twice.
Having multiple affairs with porn stars and paying them, possibly with campaign cash, to keep them quiet.
Having a wife who posed nude in lesbian-themed photos and plagiarized her only major speech.
Bragging, on tape, about sexually assaulting women.
Running several failed businesses into the ground.
Trying to violate the Cuban embargo.
Using Chinese steel on their own buildings while decrying what China has done to our steel industry.
Pretending to be his own publicist in an effort to get media outlets to publish how much women want to have sex with them.
Settling a massive fraud lawsuit for $25 million.
Bragging about being “very pro-choice.”
Bragging about the size of their penis during a presidential debate.
Getting electoral help from an adversarial power and refusing to properly condemn or punish their meddling in our election.
Siding with a foreign adversary over our own intelligence agencies.
Claiming, without evidence, that the presidential election is “rigged.”
Obsessing and lying about, and forcing government employees to do the same, the size of the crowd at their swearing in.
Lying (or being abjectly ignorant about) the size of their election victory.
Falsely claiming, without a shred of evidence, that they lost the popular vote because of millions of illegally cast votes.
Claiming to be a Christian while having no knowledge of the Bible and claiming to never have asked for forgiveness, or hardly ever actually going to church services.
Engaging in blatant nepotism.
Threatening to take guns away from citizens without due process.
Being consistently pro-Russia and pro-Putin.
Making numerous statements indicating that they want to be a dictator and praising those foreign leaders who already are.
Referring to friendly nations as “shithole” countries.
Constantly attacking people, even political allies, based on their physical appearance.
Being abjectly ignorant of the basic functions of our government.
Not knowing basic facts about important issues.
Having a general and reckless disregard for the truth.
A Comprehensive List of Things Republicans Can No Longer Legitimately Criticize Thanks to Trump

In an article for The American Conservative, Rod Dreher (no bleeding heart liberal he) has some pretty pointed things to say about Christian Trump supporters: Quoting Michael Gerson, he writes, “Evangelicals have become loyal to a leader of shockingly low character. They have associated their faith with exclusion and bias. They have become another Washington interest group, striving for advantage rather than seeking the common good. And a movement that should be known for grace is now known for its seething resentments.” Christians Tempted By Trump Idolatry He goes on to quote himself from his book “The Benedict Opinion”: “…fair or not, conservative Christianity will be associated with Trump for the next few years, and no doubt beyond. If conservative church leaders aren’t extraordinarily careful in how they manage their public relationship to the Trump phenomenon, anti-Trump blowback will do severe damage to the church’s reputation. Trump’s election solves some problems for the church, but given the man’s character, it creates others. Political power is not a moral disinfectant.
“And this brings us to the more subtle but potentially more devastating effects of this unexpected GOP election victory. There is first the temptation to worship power, and to compromise one’s soul to maintain access to it. There are many ways to burn a pinch of incense to Caesar, and some prominent pro-Trump Christians arguably crossed that line during the campaign season. Again, political victory does not vitiate the vice of hypocrisy.” (ibid)

Conservatives have made a bed of thorns that they will be forced to sleep in for years to come.

MORE (may be a lot of repeats initially but there is new stuff also)

After Tuesday’s special election upset loss in Pennsylvania, many in the Republican Party are now resigned to the likely reality that the 2018 elections, which once set up extremely well for the GOP, are going to be a disaster for them. There are many reasons this is the case, but the most prominent, of course, is that the party has allowed itself to be completely defined by President Donald Trump.

Perhaps the most underrated aspect of having sold out so thoroughly to Trump is that the GOP is now almost completely disarmed in their ability to legitimately attack Democratic candidates and office holders on numerous issues, especially in the realm of character. After all, once you have defended and accepted certain behavior from a president, it is awfully difficult, even in a world where hypocrisy is now longer seen as politically lethal, to claim that similar acts are unacceptable for any other elected office.

With this in mind, I recently attempted to put together a comprehensive — and ever growing — list of the things that had they been been true of a Democrat, Republicans and the conservative media would have been on the warpath to destroy them. I came up with almost 100 of them. I am sure the list is incomplete, and will probably grow by the end of the day, but here it is:

Being best known as a reality TV host.
Having no political experience.
Having no military experience.
Having actively dodged a war.
Having compared avoiding sexual diseases during a promiscuous period to going to war.
Having disparaged a war hero for having been captured.
Having claimed to have more military knowledge than our generals.
Having admitted to getting their military knowledge from watching TV.
Having been divorced, twice.
Having multiple affairs with porn stars and paying them, possibly with campaign cash, to keep them quiet.
Having a wife who posed nude in lesbian-themed photos and seemingly plagiarized her only major speech.
Bragging, on tape, about sexually assaulting women.
Running several failed businesses into the ground.
Running casinos and overtly sexual beauty pageants.
Declaring bankruptcy multiple times.
Trying to violate the Cuban embargo.
Using Chinese steel on their own buildings while decrying what China has done to our steel industry.
Having greatly misled about their academic record, while also questioning the academic record of a current president.
Falsely accusing a sitting president, with racist undertones, of not being eligible for the office.
Lavishly praising and giving lots of money to prominent Democrats.
Pretending to be his own publicist in an effort to get media outlets to publish how much women want to have sex with them.
Settling a massive fraud lawsuit for $25 million.
Dramatically flip-flopping on major issues, often within hours.
Bragging about being “very pro-choice.”
Bragging about the size of their penis during a presidential debate.
Bragging about massive wealth which doesn’t seem to actually exist.
Bragging about not paying taxes during a presidential debate.
Refusing to release their taxes, promising to do so if elected, and still not doing so.
Publicly asking for, and getting help from an international hacking/terrorist group to get elected.
Getting electoral help from an adversarial power and refusing to properly condemn or punish their meddling in our election.
Siding with a foreign adversary over our own intelligence agencies.
Claiming, without evidence, that the presidential election is “rigged.”
Obsessing and lying about, and forcing government employees to do the same, the size of the crowd at their swearing in.
Lying (or being abjectly ignorant about) the size of their election victory.
Falsely claiming, without a shred of evidence, that they lost the popular vote because of millions of illegally cast votes.
Claiming to be a Christian while having no knowledge of the Bible and claiming to never have asked for forgiveness, or hardly ever actually going to church services.
Making constant and dramatic campaign promises which never come close to being fulfilled.
Being unable to get hardly anything passed through a Congress controlled by their own party.
Causing run-away spending and massive deficits.
Taking credit for stock market advances they had almost nothing to do with.
Tanking the stock market with reckless statements.
Pardoning a political supporter for purely political reasons in their first year in office.
Having close senior aides quit and be fired at an alarming rate, even after having bragged that they would hire only the very best people.
Having multiple close aides plead guilty to serious crimes possibly related to their own election.
Hiring and then firing a National Security Adviser after they were correctly warned by the prior administration they were compromised by a foreign adversarial power.
Hiring a reality TV villain to work in the White House who ended up doing nothing and didn’t even last a year before being fired, provoking a bizarre security incident.
Having much of their close staff not be able to get top secret security clearances.
Having their chief economic advisor quit over a highly unpopular plan to impose huge tariffs.
Engaging in blatant nepotism.
Having a member of their own family caught up in a serious investigation of foreign meddling in our election and of allegedly using their influence to punish and reward countries based on personal business dealings.
Being in constant and clear violation of the emoluments clause of the Constitution by personally benefiting financially from foreign states because of their position.
Threatening to take guns away from citizens without due process.
Being consistently pro-Russia and pro-Putin.
Aligning themselves with blatant conspiracy theorists and supporting obvious nut jobs.
Blatantly promoting, sometimes via government resources, highly partisan and non-credible media outlets.
Actively attacking legitimate media outlets (even those they give interviews to) as “fake” simply because they don’t like what is being reported.
Actively avoiding press conferences and extensive interviews with non-friendly news media.
Making numerous statements indicating that they want to be a dictator and praising those foreign leaders who already are.
Forcing the military to hold a parade in the streets of Washington for their own personal ego gratification.
Being consistently against the First Amendment, specifically with regard to libel laws and flag burning.
Taking credit for the release of college basketball players from China when the players had already been secured before they even got involved.
Endorsing a credibly accused child molester (and general nut job) for senator in a state they won big, and then having that person lose.
Publicly backing multiple friends accused of sexual misconduct who then turned out to be at least partly guilty.
Threatening to “lock up” their political opponents.
Having sub-40% approval ratings, and seeing that as a sign of failure.
Trying to fire a Special Counsel who is investigating their own campaign.
Firing an FBI Director because they don’t like the way they are handling an investigation that directly involves themselves.
Falsely and publicly claiming they might have tapes of private conversations with their FBI Director and then bragging that it was a good strategic move to lie.
Constantly publicly criticizing, and inappropriately directing, their own Attorney General.
Releasing a partisan memo over the objections of their own Justice Department.
Publicly describing a group of NFL players as, “that son of a bitch.”
Referring to friendly nations as “shithole” countries.
Constantly attacking people, even political allies, based on their physical appearance.
Publicly mocking a disabled reporter.
Routinely tweeting badly misspelled words and inaccurate statements.
Tweeting about frivolous subjects in the middle of the night.
Threatening a foreign country led by a madman with nuclear war.
Agreeing to meet with a madman without real preconditions and without consulting any diplomatic experts.
Threatening a damaging trade war, without aides knowing about it, because they are in a bad mood.
Using the House Intelligence Committee as a piece of partisan political machinery.
Firing their Secretary of State via Twitter.
Having their personal assistant escorted off the White House grounds due to a criminal probe and then immediately hiring the assistant to work on their campaign.
Campaigning for heavily favored candidates who end up losing.
Being abjectly ignorant of the basic functions of our government.
Not knowing basic facts about important issues.
Having a general and reckless disregard for the truth.


Jon Hill, Graphic designer: autodidact: Hist., PolySci., Religion


Monday, June 10, 2019

Two Legal Systems

“Read the AJC’s 36-page “Guide for the Perplexed” about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and you wouldn’t know that in the West Bank Israel maintains two legal systems, one for Jews—which guarantees due process, free movement, citizenship in the country in which they live and the right to vote for the government that controls their lives—and a second, which denies all these rights to Palestinians.
The AJC constructs a cocoon that allows its supporters to believe that Israel is a thriving democracy even as it denies millions of Palestinians basic rights, and to believe that Israel yearns for a two state solution even as Benjamin Netanyahu boasts about opposing one.
And with the exception of Sanders, the major Democratic candidates didn’t challenge that intellectual and moral bubble. They inhabited it.

“I don’t know if Sanders would make a better president than his Democratic rivals. But this much is clear: When it comes to the conflict between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea, he’s the only candidate who is boldly defending the moral principles — human dignity, anti-racism and equality under the law -— that all the Democratic candidates claim to prize. And he’s doing it in front of the audiences that want to hear that message least, and need to hear it most.
Maybe it’s just a coincidence that he’s also the only Jewish candidate in the race. But one day, when the occupation is a distant memory and American Jews have long since acknowledged its profound injustice, our people will look back at speeches like the one he gave this week to the AJC with pride.”

Tanya

Friday, May 31, 2019

What Mueller said and what he did not say

  In the last 24 or so hours there have  been countless analyses of the Mueller statement.  Here is one more. I must first state  that Mueller is an American hero and a man of impeccable integrity.  Having said that,  I was disappointed by Mueller's statement, but not surprised.  He did exactly what I had predicted he would do.  Mueller is the ultimate example of understatement.  There were several instances where he could have stated conclusions.  Rather than doing that, he left it to the listener to draw conclusions.  
         While Mueller's position may be admirable, it allows tRUMP and his sycophants to state their own conclusions  from Mueller's statement.  And they did. Their response to Mueller's statement  is, "see, no collusion, no obstruction."  It goes without saying that they are lying.  But Mueller enabled them to do it.  So here's my take.

           Mueller began and ended his statement by stating that Russia had a massive systematic  and sweeping program to interfere with and influence  our election.    But I have a major problem with the following sentence, "This volume includes a discussion of the Trump campaign's response to this activity as well as our conclusion that there was insufficient evidence to charge a broader conspiracy."  Mueller referred to the tRUMP campaign's response to the Russian campaign, but did not state what the response was..  Mueller's report explicitly stated  that the tRUMP campaign welcomed the Russian interference.  Why could Mueller not bring himself to say perhaps the most damning of all conclusions  in the report.  The vast majority of people who have not read the report would have no idea of this damning finding.

           Mueller went on to say that the Russian campaign was intended to damage a "presidential candidate."  Why could Mueller not say that it was intended to damage the Clinton campaign.  tRUMP has often said that the Russian interference was intended to help Clinton.  Mueller should have explicitly rejected that cockamamie B.S. Mueller expects people to draw the logical conclusion.  In my view, that is not enough.

            At the end of the statement Mueller praised the hard work and the integrity of the people on his team.  That praise was fine, but not nearly enough.  tRUMP has continuously called the investigation a hoax and a witch hunt being conducted by 18 angry Democrats.  tRUMP directly attacked the integrity of Mueller and his team. He accused two of them plus Comey  of treason. Barr is now investigating Mueller and his team to see if this was a political hoax.  I think it was incumbent on Mueller to explicitly rebuke tRUMP's claim.  He had a duty to maximize the protection of his team.  He needed to say that there was a sound basis for beginning the investigation and his team was not in anyway guided by political considerations.  

        Mueller said that he was constrained by the DOJ memo to not charge a sitting president with a crime.  There are plenty of legal scholars who disagree with the DOJ memo.  Mueller chose to abide by that memo.  It should be pointed out that Ken Starr did not feel the same constraint.  I would also say that two former federal prosecutors would not have felt the same constraint if they thought that Barack Obama had committed a crime.   Those former prosecutors are Giuliani and Christie.  Mueller said that the constitution had a remedy other than the criminal justice system to deal with a president who may have committed a crime.  Mueller simply could not get the word impeachment to come from his lips.  I understand why he couldn't, but he could have  just as easily told the American people what the alternative was.

    I cannot believe that Mueller chose to give high praise to Barr.  Mueller said that  at a point in time he requested that certain portions of his report be made public.  He was referring to the executive summaries of the report.  Once again Mueller could not bring himself to say what portions he was referring to.  More importantly he said that Barr made a decision to  largely make the entire report public.  Mueller than said, "I certainly do not question the attorney general's good faith in that decision."  This is just me, but I think it is outrageous for Mueller to have made that  statement.  Barr totally misrepresented the findings of the Mueller Report.  And  when Mueller saw the misrepresentation he sent  a letter to Barr urging him to release the executive summaries.  Barr refused.  So not only had Barr misrepresented,  he refused to correct the misrepresentation despite the urging of Mueller.  Again, it is extremely disappointing  that Mueller praised the good  faith of Barr.  Mueller at a minimum could have remained silent on the subject.  Now he has given Barr a pass he absolutely does not deserve.
     
        Finally, there is one  sentence which I initialed failed to understand the  significance of..  Mueller  said the investigation was important "to preserve evidence  while memories are fresh and documents available."  There is only one  reason to preserve evidence, and that is for future proceedings.  This innocuous sentence suggests that Mueller believes there may well be future proceedings, whether trials or impeachment. 

         For me, tRUMP's response to the Mueller statement is the most fascinating of all responses.  tRUMP said that there was insufficient evidence to prove there was a crime.  Therefore, case closed.  First, Mueller's reference to insufficient evidence related only to possible conspiracy by the tRUMP campaign with Russia.  Mueller never said that there was insufficient evidence that tRUMP committed the crime of obstruction of justice.  Second, the fact that Mueller said there was insufficient evidence of a crime, does not mean there was no crime.  By the way, I have read enough of the report to question how Mueller could have come to that conclusion.  I think the report contains plenty of evidence of conspiracy.  And third, it is jaw dropping that the President of the United States thinks that lack of evidence somehow vindicates him.  That is a very low bar for anyone, let alone the President.  There are plenty of crimes which are not prosecuted for lack of evidence.  That does not mean that the crime was not committed.

              I agree with both sides of the impeachment debate.  Whether or not the House moves toward impeachment,  I think the period between now and the election will reveal enumerable facts that show tRUMP is the head of a continuing criminal enterprise.  If we survive until 2020, we will boot the crime boss out of office.  Take care all.

                                                                           Richard

Monday, May 20, 2019

Justin Amash tweets

From the day tRUMP got elected we all asked whether there is even one Republican in Congress who would call out this despicable man.  There are  53 Republican senators and about 195 Republican congressmen.  Finally there is one.  Justin Amash from Grand Rapids marches to his own drummer.  He is a far right libertarian. He is a Tea Party stalwart. My liberal friends in Grand Rapids despise him.  But everyone agrees that Amash believes in certain principles and will not waver from them  So here are his tweets:

   Here are my principal conclusions:
                    1. Attorney General Barr has deliberately misrepresented the 
                        Mueller report.

                    2. President Trump has engaged in impeachable conduct

                    3.  Partisanship has eroded our system of checks and balances

                    4. Few members of Congress have read the report.

              I offer these conclusions only after having read Mueller's redacted report carefully and completely, having read or watched pertinent statements and testimony and having discussed this matter with my staff, who thoroughly reviewed materials and provided me with further analysis.

                   In comparing Barr's principal conclusions, congressional testimony and other statements to Mueller's report, it is clear that Barr intended to mislead the public about Special Counsel Robert Mueller's analysis and findings.

                   Barr's misrepresentations are significant but often subtle, frequently taking the form of sleight-of-hand qualifications or logical fallacies which he hopes people will not notice.

                    Under our Constitution, the president " shall be removed from Office on impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."  While "high Crimes and Misdemeanors" is not defined, the context implies conduct that violates the public trust.

                     Contrary to Barr's portrayal, Mueller's report reveals that President Trump engaged in specific actions and a pattern of behavior that meet the threshold for impeachment.

                      In fact, Mueller's report identifies multiple examples of conduct satisfying all of the elements of obstruction of justice and undoubtedly any person who is not the president would be indicted based on such evidence.

                     Impeachment, which is a special form of indictment does not even require probable cause that a crime (e.g. obstruction of justice) has been committed.  It simply requires a finding that an official has engaged in careless, abusive, corrupt or otherwise dishonorable conduct.

                 While impeachment should be undertaken only in extraordinary circumstances, the risk we face in an environment of extreme partisanship is not that Congress will employ it as a remedy too often but rather that Congress will employ it so rarely that it cannot deter misconduct.

                 Our system of checks and balances relies on each branch's jealously guarding its powers and upholding its duties under our Constitution.  When loyalty to a political party or to an individual trumps loyalty to the Constitution, the rule of law-the foundation of liberty crumbles.

Now this is Richard.  I hope that Amash's tweets become  a huge national story.  Amash has spoken truth to power.  I have heard for two years  that Republicans are afraid of tRUMP. Is it possible that a second and then a third and then more Republicans will have the political courage of Amash?  Then the Wizard Of Trump will come tumbling down.  Take care all.

                                                                    Richard
                                                            

PS:  Amash's parents are immigrants from the Middle East.  tRUMP will probably tweet that Amash should go back to where he came from.

Tuesday, April 30, 2019

To impeach or not to impeach, that is the question

Without question there are multiple bases to impeach tRUMP.  Most discussions center on Mueller's findings of obstruction of justice.  tRUMP says there were no high crimes or misdemeanors. I would like to point out there are more bases for impeachment than just those.  The constitution also provides for impeachment where there has been treason or bribery.   I suggest that any president who accepts  the word of the head of a foreign enemy and disparages his own security experts is guilty of treason. (remember the judge in the Michael Flynn case said that Flynn's actions sounded like treason.) I suggest that any president who makes money (emoluments) from foreign officials is guilty of bribery.   Whether to impeach, however, is a complicated question which could be only  answered with a crystal ball.  If  we knew for certain how impeachment proceedings would affect the 2020 elections, the answer would be simple.  Here is my analysis.

        Regardless of whether tRUMP is impeached by the House,  It is almost a certainty that tRUMP will be President until January 2021.  It is inconceivable that there will be 20 Republican Senators who would vote for conviction.  About the only way that would happen is if the golden shower tapes or some other bombshell drops.   So the number 1 priority is to make sure tRUMP is not President in February 2021. The number 2 priority is to make sure we retain the House.  Number  3 priority is winning the Senate.

           Democrats must make their best calculation as to how impeachment proceedings would affect the 2020 elections.  Many Democrats are gun shy because of the Republican experience with the Clinton impeachment.  That exercise resulted in Clinton's approval rating skyrocketing.  It would be an unmitigated disaster if an impeachment of tRUMP would result in an increase in his approval rating similar to Clinton's.  That could result in his reelection.  Then priority 1 is lost.  This must   be avoided at all costs.
     
           Let's talk about priority no. 2.  There were approximately 40 seats that flipped from red to blue.  Most if not all were Republican districts.  Every one of these new congress men and women, must consider the feelings of their Republican constituents who voted for them.  I think that not a single one of the flippers ran on an anti tRUMP platform.  They ran on the issues.  If they use strong anti tRUMP rhetoric will that turn off Republicans who voted for them?  It would be horrible if we lose the House.

           There are strong arguments that an impeachment of tRUMP is far  different than the impeachment of Clinton.  I agree.  But a much better historical perspective than Clinton is the Nixon impeachment.  The House hearings lasted for almost two years.  Very slowly facts came out that led to the inevitability of Nixon either resigning or being removed.  I said at the time that the Nixon hearings were analogous to the peeling of an onion.  Layer after layer was peeled back until eventually you get to the stinking center.  I think that is exactly what will happen to tRUMP.

           Several House Dems have introduced articles of impeachment.  Those are representatives from safe Democratic districts.  They have nothing to lose by going after tRUMP.  But they have everything to lose if they are no longer in the majority. The impeachment articles  make us  feel good.  I think they are a mistake.  I come to the same conclusion as Nancy Pelosi.  Be deliberative.    Mueller has published a truckload of facts.  Congressional hearings can result in another truckload.  Let the hearings move forward in a deliberative way.  Let tRUMP supporters continue to show their blind support for this disgraceful human being.  tRUMP's base will never move.  But maybe more facts will move independents and principled Republicans.  We must stay focused on our priorities.  We cannot take a chance that tRUMP get reelected.

           The attached NYT article is the best I've seen  in describing the Democrats dilemma.  If I had a vote, I would vote against an immediate rush to impeachment.   Let the facts work there way into the American consciousness.  I will be satisfied if tRUMP is no longer the president in February 2021.  If that happens, he will still be facing a boatload of criminal and civil charges. Remember he is Individual 1.  That's only the beginning. As always, thanks for listening.

                                                                    Richard
 

Friday, April 19, 2019

Please don't stop now

  I was struck by a portion of Michelle Goldberg's piece in today's New York Times.  She wrote, "Many people, having worked frantically to deliver the House to the Democrats in the midterms, are exhausted... Outrage is hard to sustain no matter how justified." Goldberg is right.  I wish she were wrong.  In recent weeks I have spoken to too many strong Democratic supporters who are done with politics at least for this year and into next year.  This is what frightens me.
          We are living through the most catastrophic presidency in our lifetimes and perhaps in the history of our country.  As patriots we must continue to do everything we can to end this scourge.  There is a danger that tRUMP can be reelected.  There is a danger that the Republicans can retake the house.  The way those things will not happen is if we maintain the energy that won in 2018.  So please maintain the energy and ask everyone you know to do so.  If that happens we win.  Then we can rest.
   
        Let's put our current position in perspective.  We have lived with the tRUMP election for two years and six months.  We have lived with his presidency for two years and three months.  This means we are more than half way through this nightmare if we beat the lunatic in Nov. 2020.  If we lose in 2020 we are about 1/4 of the way through tRUMP. So I am going to continue to write and on occasion to solicit.  I hope you will continue to read my e mails and forgive my solicitations.  We must win in 2020.  Then we can be exhausted.
        Now for a couple of comments on current news.  tRUMP is calling to "get rid" of judges.  Fascism 101.  tRUMP is purging the cabinet.  Dictatorship 101.  tRUMP wants to again separate children from their parents.  Psychopathology 101.  tRUMP's babbling is becoming more pronounced.  Dementia 101. 
         As tRUMP continues to break the law, advocates such as the ACLU and attorneys general across the country continue to fight for the rule of law.  And judges are denying tRUMP his illegal agenda.  Perhaps John Roberts" most significant  statement during his tenure on the Supreme Court was his rebuke of tRUMP for suggesting there are Obama judges.  Our institutions are holding. So let's do whatever we can to win in 2020.  Thanks for listening.
                                                                   Richard