Category Archives: Off the Rails

Two responses to the memorandum on President Trump’s call with President Zelensky

“Just so you understand, it’s the greatest witch hunt in American history, probably history, but in American history. It’s a disgraceful thing. The letter was a great letter, meaning the letter revealing the call. That was done at the insistence of myself and other people that read it. It was a friendly letter. There was no pressure. The way you had that built up, that call that was going to be the call from hell. It turned out to be a nothing call other than a lot of people said, ‘I never knew you could be so nice.’” Donald Trump

“The transcript of the call reads like a classic mob shakedown:
–        We do a lot for Ukraine
–        There’s not much reciprocity
–        I have a favor to ask
–        Investigate my opponent
–        My people will be in touch
Nice country you got there.
It would be a shame if something happened to her.”
Adam Schiff

Judge for yourself.

“We may very well have crossed the Rubicon here.” — Congressman Adam Schiff

(Click on the hyperlink immediately above for a video of the exchange.)

Congressman Schiff, Chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, has been in sync with Speaker of the House Pelosi in resisting the impeachment of President Trump. (As he says in the video clip, “There is no chance of our persuading the Senate — the Senate Republicans — in an impeachment trial. They have shown their willingness to carry the President’s baggage no matter how soiled its contents.”)

“But if the president is essentially withholding military aid at the same time that he is trying to browbeat a foreign leader into doing something illicit — that is, providing dirt on his opponent during a presidential campaign — then that may be the only remedy that is coequal to the evil that that conduct represents.”

If Trump (and Giuliani — and others in the Executive Branch) have done what has been alleged (and Trump and his personal attorney have come close to admitting it), then the President has used the powers of his office to undermine the upcoming election. That’s a fundamental assault on our democracy. (“This seems different in kind,” in Schiff’s words.)

I agree with Tom Nichols that “If this isn’t impeachable, nothing is,” though there were ample grounds for impeachment before this came to light. David Leonhardt provides an impressive checklist.

But the fundamental calculus of whether or not to impeach hasn’t changed.

I have resisted arguments for impeachment chiefly because there is no chance of persuading Senate Republicans to put the country and the Constitution above partisanship and the GOP. Impeachment by the House followed by acquittal in the Senate would fail to hold Trump accountable. The man will be booted from the White House, if at all, through defeat in November 2020. (As Adam Schiff has stated previously, “2020 is unquestionably the only way he gets removed from office.”)

November 2020 is critical. Doing whatever we can to defeat Trump is a moral imperative. The primary question is, as it has always been (since Senate Republicans will not do the right thing): Does impeachment make Trump’s defeat more or less likely?

Brian Beutler has written, “The only defensible case against impeaching a president like Trump is a prudential one.” An advocate for impeachment, Beutler is decidedly unconvinced by the prudential case.

But at this stage we have no reason to believe there are enough votes in the House to approve articles of impeachment. A failure in that chamber would spell disaster. If the latest transgressions by Trump, or further off the rails activities going forward, lead to unanimous, or near-unanimous agreement among House Democrats to impeach, that will shift the calculus. And Nancy Pelosi will shift accordingly.

It would still be a risk, since Senate Republicans have shown no signs of shifting, for the House to impeach. But with Democratic unity, it might be a risk worth taking. We’re hardly there yet. The public opposes impeachment. Many House Democrats, hardly unreasonably, are sensitive to the opinions of their constituents.

In the meantime, if Nichols, Leonhardt, Beutler, most of the Democratic candidates for president, and many other Americans are successful in their advocacy, an ample majority of House Democrats will find their way on board.

Whether or not that day comes, November 3, 2020 looms large.

With outrage after outrage, Republicans continue to tolerate Trump’s lawlessness

Quote of the day (on the prospects for impeachment):

“As long as Republicans choose to stay relatively united, either in denying evidence of Trump’s malfeasance or claiming that there’s nothing wrong with it, then Democrats will be unable to generate enough constituent pressure to change their minds. Whatever evidence is turned up, Republicans probably can brazen it out if that’s what they really want, regardless of the damage it does to U.S. democracy. So that leaves one question for them: Is this really what you want?”Jonathan Bernstein, Bloomberg

  1. Is this really what Republicans want? That’s what I’m betting on for the foreseeable future.
  2. And, if that changes between now and November 3, 2020, I’ll wager that it won’t be a July 2019 phone call, or a Justice Department cover-up of that call, that prompts Republicans to recalibrate their support for Trump. It will be something else (almost certainly a number of something elses). Congressional Republicans, with relentless air cover from Fox News and the conservative media, haven’t budged from Trump’s corner up till now, willingly shrugging off the consequences for democratic institutions and the rule of law. They can weather this episode as well.
  3. Instead, we’ll see little more than baby steps to placate critics – such as McConnell’s sudden reversal yesterday on election security funding.
  4. On the column that Bernstein didn’t write: while Democrats “can’t do much about this by themselves,” it has been disheartening to watch the hapless efforts of the House Judiciary Committee to tell the story of Trump’s corruption.  (I had such high hopes in early June. Now, not so much.)

(Image: Gage Skidmore, Flickr.)

The Trump administration is destroying the country’s governing capacity

After Jonathan Bernstein (“The Long, Slow Destruction of the U.S. Government”) lists disheartening examples from Thursday of ways the Trump administration is “destroying the U.S. government,” and briefly reviews previous misdeeds, he aptly sums things up in the quote of the day:

“… [T]here’s nothing systematic about any of what’s happening here. No plan. No strategy. No effort to separate the worthwhile from the worthless. It’s just basically random attacks on random pieces of the government. It will take years to recover from. In some ways, perhaps the nation will never recover. 
As with the failure to fill positions with confirmed presidential nominees, it’s always possible that some of this will lead to very visible catastrophic failure. But what’s more likely is just an erosion of the capacity of the nation. We won’t necessarily be able to connect the dots when things go wrong, but there will be effects, and they are likely to stretch out into the future.”

Yeah. I take his point. Trump’s notable weaknesses as an executive and every personality flaw are at play — so the actions appear random and senseless.

My first thought (I guess it’s an obsession) is: Where are the responsible leaders of the Republican Party? We hear a murmur here and there, regarding this or that action, or this resignation, or that nomination, or the failure to nominate … but the debacle continues unabated.

These guys are just going along for the ride. As long as they can lower taxes for the GOP donor class, gut regulation across the board, and stack the courts with ideologues — what’s not to like?

But this moment’s reflection provides the insight on the grand plan at work. From Ronald Reagan’s “Government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem,” to Grover Norquist’s “I don’t want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub,” through Newt Gingrich’s deliberate campaign to undermine public trust in our governing institutions and Mitch McConnell’s embrace of dysfunction and implacable opposition to bipartisan policy making, movement conservatism has been committed to a long term strategy of diminishing the size and scope and stature of government.

If government becomes less effective, less responsive, less capable — so be it. If the capacity of government and the reservoir of public trust disintegrate — so be it.

The Republican Party is in thrall of an ideology. Conservative doctrine hasn’t changed much since the country put Reagan in the White House. Movement conservatives purged the liberals and moderates from the GOP. Then they went after the pragmatists. They have beaten back reliance on science, empirical evidence, and a rational process of making policy when these conflicted with conservative doctrine (as they must from time to time). And, more recently, they have been willing to shame or oust Republicans who have resisted the authoritarian impulses, the sowing of racial and ethnic discord, the affection for dictators, the self-dealing, the chaos, and much else that Donald Trump has ushered in.

Most Republicans in office have chosen to go along to get along — so long as it doesn’t threaten their next bid for reelection. Does that count as a plan?

One might object that conservative ideology, circa 1980, didn’t entail stupidity or overreach or hate. That wasn’t the plan. Perhaps not.

But conservative true believers from the beginning demanded fidelity to the one true cause (as they defined it). And over the past four decades, as the movement has advanced and grown more powerful, they have become relentlessly more rapacious, less open to accommodation of their political foes, and unalterably opposed to dissenting voices. We have reached a point where collateral damage to democratic institutions, to the country’s economy, and to the public welfare warrants no more than a shrug, if preserving these things stands in the way of conservative victories.

There may be a point at which a substantial number of Republican office holders choose to step back from inevitable devotion to (what passes for) conservatism. There may be a point where principle or patriotism, where the Constitution or a diverse body politic, or where a fundamental sense of right and wrong trumps conformity to conservative dogma (as mediated by Fox News, et al.).

Thus far, there are few signs that this day is imminent. Instead, we have the plan, the system, the strategy of the conservative movement: fidelity, come what may, to an intractable ideology. Start down this path and, even when things turn stupid and ugly, there’s no way out of the cul de sac.

(Image from wikipedia.)

Mass murder, the power of prayer, public policy, the NRA, and the Second Amendment

Texas Governor Gregg Abbott: “I want the city of El Paso to know and El Paso police department and everybody in this entire community know that the state of Texas provides its full support for this community and their efforts to rebuild. For the country that I know has been paying a lot of attention to this, asking what they can do, I ask that you keep El Pasoans in your prayer. We know the power of prayer and the power can you have by using that prayer. For every mom and dad and son and daughter, we ask you put your arms around your family members tonight and give them a hug and let them know how much you love them.”

Texas Congresswomen Sylvia Garica: “I believe in the power of prayer so I will pray for El Paso. I also believe in the power of public policy. We have to do more!”

The NRA embraces the unrestricted sale and possession of military assault rifles. (“The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.” — Wayne LaPierre, following the 2012 Sandy Hook massacre of children. Nothing has changed since then, except the body count.)

Second Amendment to the Constitution: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Does anyone — from the conservative legal movement or the Republican delegation in Congress — believe that the Founders intended to prevent federal restrictions on access to assault weapons? What conservative principle stands in the way of doing more than extolling the power of prayer in the face of mass killing after mass killing after mass killing? (See Case #1 in this post on the current state of ‘conservative’ jurisprudence.)

(Image of Dayton Daily News website the morning the mass shooting in Dayton eclipsed the mass shooting in El Paso at the top of the news.)

Colorful flow chart + animus toward Bezos leads Trump to block Pentagon contract

On July 30, the Washington Post reported that the “Pentagon has issued an unusually strong rebuke of Oracle” for its efforts to sabotage the military’s process for awarding a $10 billion dollar Joint Enterprise Defense Infrastructure (JEDI) contract.

On August 1, the Post reported that the sabotage was successful:

The White House has instructed newly installed Defense Secretary Mark T. Esper to reexamine the awarding of the military’s massive cloud-computing contract because of concerns that the deal would go to Amazon, officials close to the decision-making process said.

What led to this change of heart? First, Donald Trump’s animus toward Jeff Bezos (who owns both the Washington Post and Amazon):

Trump on several occasions has spoken out against Amazon and its chief executive, Jeff Bezos. And he has attacked the Bezos-owned Washington Post for its coverage of him by conflating it with Amazon’s interests. The president has called the news organization the “Amazon Washington Post,” while accusing it of publishing “fake news” and being a “lobbyist newspaper” for the company.

Second, “a colorful flow chart” (image above), created by an Oracle executive, that landed on the President’s desk and precipitated a discussion with his aids. Last April, an Oracle co-CEO had raised the issue with Trump at dinner in the White House:

Oracle has lobbied Trump aggressively on the matter, hoping to appeal to his animosity toward Amazon as well as former defense secretary Jim Mattis, who angered the president when he resigned last year over the administration’s foreign policy decisions. Oracle Executive Vice President Ken Glueck, who runs the company’s policy shop in Washington, said he created a colorful flow chart labeled “A Conspiracy To Create A Ten Year DoD Cloud Monopoly” that portrayed connections among Amazon executives, Mattis and officials from the Obama administration.

In other news of the day, President Trump continued to dismiss Mueller’s warnings of ongoing Russian interference in U.S. elections. [Video at link:]

Addendum: “To the careful observer, the Trump administration’s foreign policy provokes two strong reactions. The first is despair. The Trump White House has succeeded in doing a lot of damage to U.S. national interest. …

The other strong reaction, however, is laughter. The Trump White House has beclowned itself so frequently, across such a wide variety of foreign policy issues, that it is difficult not to chuckle at the buffoonery on display.” — Daniel Drezner

(Image: Jonathan Swan on Twitter.)

“Infested. It sounds like vermin. . . . subhuman.” — Wallace; “It’s fair to have that conversation.” — Mulvaney

There is a clear pattern here, Mick,” Chris Wallace says and goes on to describe Donald Trump’s dehumanizing language directed always at people who happen not to have white skin. “Infested. It sounds like vermin. It sounds subhuman. And these are all six Members of Congress who are people of color.”

Mick Mulvaney responds: “I think you’re spending way too much time reading between the lines.”

Wallace: “I’m not reading between the lines. I’m reading the lines.”

Mulvaney scrambles to divert attention from the pattern of Trump’s smears by raising the possibility that if Adam Schiff had criticized Trump’s border policies, then Trump could be directing these comments at Schiff.

Wallace interjects: “I don’t think he’d be talking about his crime-infested, rodent-infested district.”

Mulvaney plows ahead, insisting that if Trump were directing these insults at Schiff, this would not be because Schiff is Jewish.

Mulvaney: “This is what the President does. He fights. And he’s not wrong to do so.”

Mulvaney continues talking, still diverting attention from Trump’s vilification of black and brown Members of Congress and minority Congressional districts. Sticking to (the non-existent, but hypothetically possible) criticism of Schiff, Mulvaney castigates California: “The richest state in the nation. The richest state in the nation has abject poverty like that. A state, by the way, dominated for generations by Democrats.”

Mulvaney’s audience of one may have found this defense convincing. Then again, Mulvaney’s comments might be aimed much more broadly (“… Trump’s advisers had concluded after the previous tweets that the overall message sent by such attacks is good for the president among his political base — resonating strongly with the white working-class voters he needs to win reelection in 2020.”).

Trump continues to insist that Democratic women with brown skin don’t belong here

“What the president is doing is, we are tired — sick and tired — of many people in this country. Forget these four. They represent a dark underbelly of people in this country of people who are not respecting our troops, are not giving them the resources and the respect that they deserve.”Kellyanne Conway on Fox News (video at link)

As Donald Trump’s undisguised racist attack on the four Democratic Congresswomen known as ‘the squad‘ continued to dominate the news cycle for another day, it has become clear that this represents a central theme in the President’s 2020 campaign.

Brad Parscale, the Trump campaign manager, has been telling people that it is very hard to persuade voters in the current hyperpartisan political landscape.

Mr. Trump’s re-election strategy, instead, is to solidify his base and increase turnout. A major component of that is to portray his opponents as not merely disliking him and his policies, but also disliking America itself.

The strategy is reminiscent of how President Richard M. Nixon and the Republican Party tried to frame their fight with Democrats during the 1972 elections around questions of patriotism and loyalty. Nixon supporters took to using the slogan “America: Love It or Leave It” to cast the Democrats and the growing opposition to the Vietnam War as anti-American — not merely anti-Nixon or anti-Republican.

Pat Buchanan, the populist, conservative former presidential candidate who served as an aide to Nixon, said that by elevating the four, Mr. Trump is trying to set the terms of his re-election fight.

“Rather than let Democrats in the primaries choose his adversary, Trump is seeking to make the selection himself,” Mr. Buchanan said. And if the election is seen as a choice between Democrats like Ms. Ocasio-Cortez and Ms. Omar, Mr. Buchanan added, “Trump wins.”

Two reporters at the Washington Post cataloged Congressional Republicans’ reactions to Trump’s tirades. The results (as of July 16 at 8:12 p.m.):  

  • 18 condemned Trump’s remarks;
  • 42 criticized both Democrats and Trump;
  • 29 supported Trump’s remarks; while
  • 161 did not comment, dodged the question, or made vague statements that couldn’t be characterized as either criticism or support.

Yesterday 4 Republicans (and Independent Justin Amash) joined all 235 Democrats in voting to condemn Trump’s racist remarks. (A handful of Republican Congressmen voted against the resolution, after earlier condemning the President’s remarks.)

Dave Wasserman of the Cook Political Report noted that “Democrats represent 54% of all House districts but 95% (!) of the 100 districts with the highest shares of foreign-born residents,” while “Republicans represent 83% of the 100 districts with the highest shares of native-born residents ….”

New Poll: The Rasmussen Poll, one of the most accurate in predicting the 2016 Election, has just announced that “Trump” numbers have recently gone up by four points, to 50%. Thank you to the vicious young Socialist Congresswomen. America will never buy your act!“—Donald Trump @realDonaldTrump

Will this be a winning strategy for Trump? It was in 2016. It wasn’t in 2018. Time will tell. According to Pew Research Center, the partisan gap in views of immigration is as wide as at any point in 25 years (chart at link). The question is, who will turn out to vote?

GOP and corporate Resistance fades as Trump doubles down on racist comments

Yes, some Republican leaders spoke out to offer mostly muted criticism of Trump after more than 24 hours, often in the next breath (or the first breath) criticizing the Democratic women of color Trump attacked.

“They’re just terrified of crossing swords with Trump, and they stay mute even when the president unleashes racist tirades,” said presidential historian Douglas Brinkley, who has been critical of Trump. “Republican leaders are now culpable for encouraging this kind of rank bigotry. By not speaking out, by staying mum, they are greenlighting hate rhetoric.”—“Trump’s incendiary rhetoric is met with fading resistance from Republican and corporate leaders,” Toluse Olorunnipa, Washington Post,  July 15, 2019

The WaPo article notes the silence of corporate leaders (including those on the South Lawn of the White House celebrating Trump’s economic policies) as Trump continued to defame four women newly elected to Congress as members of his political opposition.

After some brief remarks about American manufacturing, the president launched into an acerbic screed doubling down on his Sunday tweets that encouraged the Democratic congresswomen, who he said “hate our country,” to leave the United States.

“If you’re not happy here, then you can leave,” he added. “That’s what I said in a tweet that I guess some people think is controversial. A lot of people love it, by the way. A lot of people love it.”

He was met with applause.

It seems that for many people Trump being Trump is hardly worthy of comment any more, even as he ratchets up the racism, xenophobia, and hate. Certainly Trump wouldn’t be Trump without the racism:

Trump has trafficked in racist and racially charged politics for decades, working to keep African Americans out of his and his father’s apartment buildings in Cincinnati and New York from his earliest days in the real estate business.
In 1989, he ran newspaper ads calling for the death penalty after five black and Latino teenagers were accused of raping a jogger. Last month, he suggested the Central Park Five might still be guilty even if they were exonerated by DNA evidence and another man’s confession years ago, saying, “You have people on both sides of that.”
Trump raised his profile as a political figure on the right during President Obama’s tenure by fanning false conspiracies questioning whether Obama was born in the United States.
And he drew some of the strongest rebukes of his own presidency in August 2017 when he said there were “very fine people on both sides” in violent clashes between white supremacists and counterprotesters in Charlottesville, Va.
James Fields, who drove his car into a crowd and killed a woman during the rally, was sentenced Monday to life in prison plus 419 years on state charges. Fields was previously sentenced to life in prison on federal hate crime charges.—As Trump doubles down on racist comments, House to vote on condemning them,” Noah Bierman, Jennifer Haberkorn, Los Angeles Times, July 15, 2019

(Image: screen grab from local TV of the four newly elected Democratic Congresswomen, popularly known as ‘the squad,’ responding to President Trump’s attacks yesterday.)