An Anecdote and the Test of Character

draft

So my friends parents lived in a house in LA. They maintained pristine social isolation except for one caregiver / assistant who bought the groceries, cooked the meals, and so forth. Unbeknownst to the caregiver, she was exposed to the coronavirus and was asymptomatic, brought the virus home, and the two parents were dead within about a week from the time they realized that anything was wrong. There is no doubt, none whatsoever, that if Trump and his co-conspirators had acted minimally responsibly the course of this disease would have been different. The details of their failure are still coming out and its apparently much worse than anyone knew.

I need the Republican party in the Senate to find 17 loyal Americans who can do the right thing. This is the test of character. There will be no other test that matters. And we all know what is going to happen. This could be a moment of redemption and a step on the long road back. But they will fail this test, wont they.

Corrupt Supreme Court and Separation of Power

draft

My friend, the Harvard trained attorney, tried to convince me that the Supreme Court denied the Democratic subpoena for the Mueller report because of "separation of powers". He didnt convince me of that, but he did convince me that the system was corrupt.

I said: "If, as you say, the subpoena is denied because of separation of powers, then the Democrats were stupid to expect anything from an independent investigation. The president could just order his corrupt attorney general to suppress whatever was discovered. So either the Supreme Court is suppressing the evidence (it is) or the Democrats and the American people were stupid to trust the process (they were) but in any case the legitimacy of the American system is diminished. "

There are many problems here but the one that amazes me the most is not the actions of the corrupt right wing nuts in Washington.  I think I understand them just fine.  What I find most unbelievable is the large number of people who are willing to accept any amount of corruption and treason as long as they dont have to face the fact that their system failed.

But it did fail.  It obviously failed many times.  Wake up.

Rebuttal to Rumor about House Impeachment and Subpoenas

draft 

I have done a lot of reading on the issues of (a) what the House has to do to start an investigation and (b) who can issue subpoenas.  This email is a report on what I have discovered so far and what my sources were.  If you can point me to any other relevant material, by all means do so.

So far as I know the following is accurate but somewhat simplified.  In broad strokes, the situation is clear and unambiguous although when it comes to the individual merits of a specific subpoena and whether executive privilege or attorney privilege applies then that opens a different set of issues that we are not addressing here.  What we are discussing is the assertion that the House did not follow the rules when it came to starting an investigation and that therefore all the subpoenas are invalid.  Both of these assertions are false.

The primary sources are (a) the constitution, (b) articles about the constitution and impeachment written in various law journals (Harvard and Georgetown seem to be the leading ones so far), (c) Congressional Research Service (CRS) Reports which are a fabulous resource see below, and (d) a funny blog I read a lot called www.lawfareblog.com, which is a blog about congress and national security. They try to be bipartisan, but I think in this case what it means is that smart people of different opinions write articles on a topic and then ignore each other.  Theoretically, one should be knowledgable about all the times the House has investigated someone to see what the precedent is, but that is going to be much harder to do.   (As an aside, I love the CRS reports and they are a great resource.  The idea is that you are (for example) a new member of Congress and you have no idea what the history of our relationship with Turkey and the Kurds are, and you dont have that much time to read.  So the CRS will probably have written a nice background paper for you.  Many of the papers can be found at https://fas.org/sgp/crs/)

So as I understand it, it goes something like this.  The constitution gives the sole right to the House to "impeach" which is essentially to act as a grand jury (i.e. to choose to bring an indictment, or not) in any matter involving the executive, the judiciary and, for that matter, themselves.  The Senate is not involved unless Articles of Impeachment are passed by the House by a simple majority of the present and voting members.  Both the House and the Senate may investigate pretty much whatever they want, but only committees can issue subpoenas.  Each committee has its own rules and its own traditions about all sorts of things, but certainly about subpoenas.  In general the rules are voted on, accepted, and then published at the beginning of each session of congress.  Sometimes the rules are modified in mid-session, for example the House Judiciary Committee recently changed the rules to allow more time for a witness to be questioned.  So far as I can tell, there is no special procedure which has to be followed before an impeachment investigation has begun.  I find no reference to one anywhere.  There is however a variety of rules involving what a committee must do to issue a subpoena and those rules seem to be different between the different committees.

Some committees need a vote before a subpoena can be issued.  Some committees delegate this ability to the Chairman or to the Chairman and the ranking minority leader acting as a team.  Some committees allow the minority members to block a subpoena.  An excellent discussion of this is

Each committee has its own rules about what can be delegated to the chairman of the committee, what the ranking minority member can do, how much notice must be given, whether the ranking minority member can, for example, block a subpoena, and so forth.  There is no one standard here, each committee has its own rules.  I recommend you read the CRS report on the issue which can be found at:  https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44247.pdf

As I suspected there is no magical procedure that has to be followed to start an investigation.  Do you really think that the Democrats would be so stupid as to "forget"?  I sure dont.  But I was surprised a bit at the different rules of the different committees, that was news to me.  What is not at all clear is what Congress can do when you have a rogue, obviously corrupt administration like the current Republican/Trump one.  Ultimately, Congress has the power to put people in jail for contempt of Congress and I think that is likely to be where this leads. You can do your friends a favor by feeding this back to them.  Its their credibility that gets hurt by stuff like this.

There is an amazing about of bullshit out there.  I dont know why the Republicans put up with this.

Reasons to Impeach Trump

draft


This is what I would have expected from our elected representatives by now.  Forgive my pretensions, I am not Jefferson.  All of the following is, to the best of my knowledge, just basically and obviously true, with one or two statements slightly slanted to make the point. 

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

The history of the present President of the United States is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

- He has demonstrated a complete contempt for the truth, lying about matters of public record and often of national security causing harm to the Republic and to people's trust in their government,

- He has attacked the integrity and reputation of our institutions of justice and intelligence and made false accusations of bias and malfeasance,

- He has signed into law a tax bill that has dangerously increased the deficit, solely for the benefit of the rich and of corporations at the expense of all other Americans, 

- He has obstructed Congress in its constitutionally mandated role to investigate and maintain oversight of the Executive Branch,

- He has insulted our allies and threatened many of the international alliances upon which our security depends, 

- He has caused the families of refugees to be ripped apart and deliberately subjected refugees to inhuman and appalling treatment,

- He has unfairly attacked and called for the violent suppression of a political opponent, 

- He has encouraged racists and organizations devoted to violence in support of racism, 

- He and his attorney general have misrepresented the content of an independent investigation of matters vital to this nation in order to obstruct further investigation into his overtly criminal activities, 

- He has failed to nominate appropriate people for the various positions in the executive branch that are mandated by congress and has deliberately tried to avoid Congressional oversight,

- He has instructed members of the executive branch to violate the law and the constitution, knowing full well that his instructions, if carried out, would be a criminal act, 

- He has failed to act aggressively to investigate the hostile acts of a foreign actor who has deliberately spread misinformation and attacked the integrity of our elections,

- He has nominated grossly unqualified people to the judiciary in order to damage it, doing so with the help of a Senate Majority leader who has violated all our traditions of approving such justices, including in the worst case, nominating and approving a justice to the supreme court who is suspected of violence against women without proper investigation, 

- He has violated precedent by refusing to reveal his finances in spite of widespread suspicion of malfeasance, 

These actions and many more have damaged our nation, its institutions and its reputation.  He has diminished the faith that our people have in a fair and just government.  

Anyone of even the slightest integrity and loyalty to our nation would have resigned by now but, having failed to resign, we are forced to begin proceedings of impeachment which is both our duty and our right.  It will then be up to the Senate to demonstrate whether it has any integrity and loyalty to our nation or is merely a political tool of the poseur and criminal currently in the position of President of these United States.

I Called My Congressman Again Today

I called my Congressman's office again today, I try to make them laugh. I pointed them to the front page of politico.com and suggested that any other president would be impeached (or at least it would be in motion) just for what is on the front page today. It wont do any good, I know, but it lets me feel better and hey, I know that they do add up what the phone calls from constituents say as some sort of informal poll, so maybe every little bit helps.

Donation to Elizabeth Warren

draft

I just sent another $50 to the presidential campaign fund of Elizabeth Warren.  She got out in front and called for the impeachment of that obvious traitor and criminal in the White House.  We need someone as president who has some balls.  Either Bernie or Elizabeth work for me as President, but I am rewarding Ms. Warren because she was not a coward like so many Democrats on this issue.  I encourage you to do the same.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/19/politics/elizabeth-warren-donald-trump-impeachment-proceedings/index.html

Called My CongressPerson

draft

So I called my Congressman, Carbajal, CA-24, and talked to a nice intern.  I asked to leave a message to ask Congressman Carbajal, and wanted to know when they were going to impeach Trump and the rapist Kavanaugh.

I am really getting tired of this shit.  Too bad the american government failed.

Write Your Elected Representative? Yes, Annoy Him/Her.

draft

Surely you are not so naive as to believe that writing your representative will do any good?  Oh you do?  You do think it will do some good?

Well, it might if you consider "annoy the fuckers" to be "some good".  And I do think thats so, why not?

At this point, the national security elite, the wall street/financial elite, and the people who know the dangers of a government shutdown all have to be shaking in their boots.  Their bet (a stupid bet if you ask me) that they could manage the orange moron has been lost.

Now what?  Impeach him?  Well, better late than never I guess.

But I bet our elected elite will still equivocate.  
 

When Some Moron Says Trump is Not Impeachable

draft

I dont have any pro-Trump friends any more, at least not on FB. I might have some friends in real life with whom I do not discuss politics who might be Trump supporters without my knowledge, and that is fine. But for those of you who have Trump supporters as friends, here is a nice concise response from the New Yorker about what to say when they say "What!? What has he done that impeachable!? Nothing!". When some idiot says that, here is at least one reply:


Over its first 20 months in office, this administration has produced what would have, heretofore, passed for a presidency-defining scandal on a near-daily basis. There is, of course, the president’s ongoing campaign to undermine the independence of federal law enforcement; his apparent use of U.S. military deployments as a campaign tool; ostensible violations of campaign-finance law; shameless profiteering off the presidency; gross violations of information-security protocols; use of mass child abuse as a tool for border enforcement; personal business relations with a Saudi government whose murder of an American resident he has enthusiastically apologized for; lackluster response to the hurricane crisis in Puerto Rico; and failure to so much as staff many key federal offices; among many, many other things. Meanwhile, just about every major Cabinet official has seemingly committed at least one major ethics offense.

From the New Yorker.


http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/11/house-democrats-trump-investigations-oversight-maxine-waters-moderates.html

Trump Dives Off Deep End with Obama Wiretap Accusations

draft

[Updated 3/4/2017 Nothing is really understood about this matter at this point in time.  But I can correct one mistake in the following post.  It would be legal for Trump to talk about a classified investigation because the POTUS has the power to declassify such an investigation at any time. Therefore, in and of itself, these tweets are unlikely to be an impeachable offense for that reason.]

Trump has accused Obama of being a Richard Nixon and tapping his office. See the article at the Guardian here.

I think I know what this might be about, but it comes down to Trump either being a nut case or that he does not understand national security issues at all, or that he does not understand the difference between the Watergate Plumbers and the FBI acting with a warrant. You pick. Either of the three though means that he should be impeached and I am tired of waiting.

I suspect, and here I am speculating again, that when the FBI/CIA came to realize that Russia was working to destroy free elections in America through disinformation and fake news, and when the issue of contacts between Trump and Russia became a matter of national security, that it would be logical to listen in. After all, the Russians certainly were listening to everything Trump said on his cell phone or any other phone, you can be quite sure. So my guess is that the FBI got a warrant to listen in and see what they picked up. Does Trump not know the difference between the Nixon Plumbers and a national security investigation with a warrant? Probably not, he isnt too smart, he has no aptitude for these things, and he has no experience. He may also be a clinical narcissist and sociopath, at least that is what the available evidence suggests.

This also suggests that he has just leaked/disclosed information about an ongoing investigation which is, I think, a felony.

As posted on Facebook.

Why I Doubt Trump Will Be Impeached

Many of my friends on Facebook and otherwise are convinced that Trump will be impeached within 18 months or so. Well I hate to pour cold water on my friends hopes, but I am not of that opinion and I want to explain why.

Let me say before I begin that I have been very wrong about many things this election season (I thought Hillary would win easily), so take all this with even extra salt.

The argument goes like this. What people think of as “impeachment” is really a two step process. The first step is that the House of Representatives has to have a majority vote for impeachment, and then the Senate has to vote to convict by a 2/3rds margin.

But what is an impeachable offense? Well, practically it is what the House of Representatives says it is. But the Republicans control the House of Representatives, so why would they vote to impeach Trump? Well, they might if their base insisted that they impeach him, presumably because Trump's behavior was so egregious.

Although the Republican base does not exactly equal Trump's voter base, they are pretty close, and Trump's base seems to be immune to pretty much everything that the Democrats and my friends find so offensive. Even worse, this base seems to even be delighted at anything that annoys (I almost said “pisses off” but I restrained myself) my so-called “liberal” friends.

So one of three things has to happen. Any of the three is sufficient, but how likely are they?

First, the Democrats could win a majority of the House, that would do for impeachment. Then to convict, they would have to have 2/3rds of the Senate or, of course, get a number of Republicans to vote with them in either case. Well, I think it is unlikely that the Democrats will win either house, and if they do, by definition that will not be for at least two years (the next mid-term election).

Second, Trump could do something so egregious that the Republican congressman and/or their base are do disgusted that they *have* to impeach him. What you and I think is egregious does not matter, it is what they think is egregious. I dont know what this would be, maybe a few “bunga bunga” parties?

Third, Trump could do something so dangerous or show such psychotic behavior that they have to remove him from the presidency and commit him. This would probably not use the impeachment process but would probably use the 25 th Amendment:

Section 4 of the XXV Amendment:

Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.

See the Wikipedia Page on the 25th Amendment

Now, while this is possible, it is not something to count on.

In short, while my friends may wish Trump to go away, I don't believe that he will. So, it seems to me that my friends must redouble their efforts to win back Congress if they want to turn this country around. And that is a totally different problem.

How to Remove a President (Constitutional Methods)

draft

The obvious question to ask in the context of the Trump disaster, is how do you remove a president who is a maniac, or who suffers from a personality disorder, or is a fanatic and who is expected to involve us in war and attempt to destroy the country hand-in-hand with the incredibly stupid faction that put him into power?

There are a variety of case studies from history, both recent and ancient, and we will review some of them here. Please be aware that each of these is contingent on that nations culture, its institutions, its laws and the specific situations at hand (e.g. an unpopular war, a famine, riots, police oppression, etc).

This post will discuss constitutional methods only. A second post will discuss some of the extra-constitutional methods.

I use the term “President” below as a synonym for other titles including “Chancellor”, “Premier”, “Prime Minister”, “Shah” and “First Secretary”.

1. The President is installed / removed on a technicality which may or may not be legal.

In 2000, the right-wing US Supreme Court forced the recount in Florida to be halted in order to install Bush Jr as president. Anyone who examines that situation comes away with the following impression: had the recount continued Al Gore would have won the election. In this way, by controlling the Supreme Court, the right wing was able to defeat the results of an election. Whether or not you believe that or not is irrelevant. A substantial number of Americans do believe it.

If in 2016, the Electoral College were to install Hillary Clinton instead of Donald Trump, it would be perfectly legal to the best of my knowledge and the Trump faction would go nuts. The Electoral College is an artifact from 200 years ago and is itself a technicality that many people do not find legitimate. I doubt this situation will occur.

2. The President / Tsar / whatever is responsible for (or inherits) a policy so unpopular that he/she resigns from office or declines to run for re-election.

There are many examples of this in history, a notable one being LBJ's decision not to run for re-election and is also probably the case of the abdication of Tsar Nicholas II in 1917.  In the latter case the situation in Russia was far more complicated and dire than simply an unpopular war.

3. The President loses a vote of confidence or is impeached and convicted by Congress.

This is more common in parliamentary governments than in our type of government. It requires a congress / parliament that is not controlled by the President's party and/or the President loses control of his own party. As the impeachment of Clinton showed, the fact of an impeachment does not have to be based on anything real and that it is quite possible to survive an impeachment when the charges are baseless and merely the irrational actions of an irresponsible Republican party.

Since the Republicans currently control both houses of Congress and is likely to appoint one of their goons to the Supreme Court, this is an unlikely scenario for the immediate future.  However much the mainstream Republicans hate Donald Trump, he is still technically a Republican and better than a stick-in-the-eye for their right wing, America-hating causes.

There is the entertaining possibility, however low probability, that the Republicans might impeach Trump if he did something egregious, as a way of putting a more compliant reactionary in charge, e.g. Pence.

4. The President commits a crime which is exposed and the resulting scandal causes him/her to resign.

In general for this scenario to work, the scandal has to be so egregious that it overwhelms the attempts of the administration to suppress it.  In this country it usually requires an “independent prosecutor” to be assigned, its report has to be damning, and the threat of impeachment has to be real.

This scenario also requires, or may require, such things as an internal security unit doing the right thing and trying to enforce the law, or a whistle blower who is aware of the crime coming forward, or a responsible press, and usually a combination of the above.

This is a likely scenario ultimately for Trump. But there are many reasons to think that it also might not work in his case. Trump has proven to be remarkably immune to borderline insane behavior already exhibited, the Republicans control both houses of Congress and would have to approve an independent prosecutor, and our internal security forces would have to do the right thing which in general is not a realistic expectation on our part.

5. The Constitution permits a president to be removed without impeachment.

There is a technique for removing the President if he/she is judged to be insane in the opinion of his/her own administration. I know very little about it but I think it is intended to prevent nuclear war in the short run while the government figures out what to do with a certified loony at the top. To the best of my knowledge, these provisions have never been used.

In the next post on the subject of removal, we will review some of the more entertaining but illegal methods of removal of the chief executive such as assassination.