Heather Cox Richardson

January 29, 2020 (Wednesday)

Today, on the floor of the Senate, retired Harvard Professor Alan Dershowitz said the quiet part out loud. Trying to argue that it was okay for Trump to withhold congressionally approved funds from Ukraine until Ukraine’s president agreed to smear Trump’s key rival in the 2020 election, Dershowitz said that Trump’s actions were in the public interest because Trump believes that his reelection is what’s best for the country. “Every public official that I know believes that his election is in the public interest… and if a president did something that he believes will help him get elected, in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment.”

Dershowitz is so far out on a limb on this one he’s dangling out there on the fuzzy tips. Other legal scholars note that his interpretation of what is acceptable behavior from a president quite literally means that the president can do anything to stay in power. Republicans are flocking to Dershowitz’s argument, although some are willing to concede that if a president breaks a law, that would be an impeachable offense. That concession is marred in this case, of course, by the fact that the Government Accountability Office has concluded that Trump did, in fact, break a law by withholding funds from Ukraine, and also by the complication that currently, a 1973 Department of Justice memo does not permit a sitting president to be indicted. Trump’s lawyers are currently in court arguing that a sitting president cannot be investigated, either. So… how would we establish that a president had committed a crime?

In any case, this interpretation is so completely ahistorical and bonkers that lawyers and constitutional scholars are chewing it to bits all over the media tonight. If a president can do anything to get reelected, including using the power of the American government to pressure a foreign country into smearing a rival, under what possible circumstances would we ever have a change in president? He or his selected replacements will rule forever.

But this chilling perversion of the American presidency does say a great deal about today’s Republican leaders. They have bought into the idea that they, and only they, should rule. This has been a long time coming.

Before the midterm elections of 1970, it was pretty clear to President Richard Nixon’s advisors that Nixon needed a Hail Mary plan to rally voters around the increasingly beleaguered president. So Pat Buchanan and Lee Atwater quite deliberately drew voters to Nixon by accusing their opponents of being lazy, dangerous, and anti-American.

This division of the electorate and the demonization of the “other” became standard Republican practice. In 1990, under Newt Gingrich‘s direction, GOPAC, the Republican state and local political training organization actually distributed a document called “Language: A Key Mechanism of Control” to elected Republicans. The document urged them to refer to Democrats with words like “corrupt,” “cheat” “disgrace,” “endanger,” “failure,” hypocrisy,” “intolerant,” “liberal,” “lie,” “pathetic,” “sick,” “steal,” “traitors,” “waste,” “welfare,” and—ironically, considering the Republicans current stand—“abuse of power.”

This denigration of Republicans’ opponents has metastasized. Now, at the top of our political system, the president refers to those who challenge his power as “crazy… radical rage-filled, left socialists,” calling even staunch Republicans like former FBI Director James Comey and Special Counsel Robert Mueller Democrats when they oppose him. Republicans have gotten to a point where they believe that anyone who is not one hundred percent behind Trump is a dangerous, ungodly socialist and/or a baby killer.

If so, it is surely patriotic to make sure such people never hold power. Voter suppression, gerrymandering, lying, taking foreign money, asking a foreign government to smear a rival… as Dershowitz said, all of those things seem to be for the good of the country if you have demonized your political opponents.

But really, where should you stop, if indeed you are protecting your country? Nixon famously used the FBI to investigate people who did not support his policies, believing that their opposition to him weakened his presidency and thus weakened America against the USSR. Under Woodrow Wilson, the Department of Justice rounded up 3000 immigrants they suspected of being leftists and deported more than 500 of them. And in 1868, southern Democrats convinced that Republican voters were a danger to society lynched more than 1000 black and white Republicans before the 1868 election.

We are not yet at this point, but Dershowitz’s argument leads straight to it. In illustration, Republican senators today argued that there was no need to hear anything from former National Security Advisor John Bolton, who has indicated he is eager to testify that he heard Trump directly say he was withholding Ukraine aid until Ukraine’s leaders agreed to smear Biden, because it simply doesn’t matter. Even if Trump did it, they now say, there is nothing wrong with a president withholding funds to pressure a foreign government to dig up dirt on his rivals.

It is not only the president who thinks it is okay to cheat to stay in power. So, apparently, do Republican lawmakers. This makes sense, of course, if they believe that the Democrats will destroy America. Better to destroy it themselves, first, and make sure that they are the ones who control the authoritarian government that rises from the ashes of democracy.

But regular Americans of all parties are pushing back to defend democracy, demanding that the Trump administration and Republican senators follow the law and our established precedents. It looks like Trump’s people are increasingly worried that they might lose power.

You can see it in Trump’s frantic tweeting. Today, for example, he repeatedly touted what he considers economic victories (although economists disagree about that), and said that there was no point in allowing witnesses because “No matter how many witnesses you give the Democrats, no matter how much information is given, like the quickly produced Transcripts, it will NEVER be enough for them. They will always scream UNFAIR. The Impeachment Hoax is just another political CON JOB!” (Again, just to be clear, there has been no transcript of the July 25 phone call between Trump and Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky released, and Col. Alexander Vindman, who was on the call, says the readout we have is incomplete and misleading.)

You can see it in the move of the White House today to repress Bolton’s book about his time in the White House. A top official from the National Security Council wrote to Bolton’s lawyer to say that the manuscript “appears to contain significant amounts of classified information,” including “top secret” information that “reasonably could be expected to cause exceptionally grave harm to the national security.” It cannot be published in its current form. Bolton, of course, knows security rules and transmitted the manuscript to the White House with a letter saying he believed the manuscript was clean. Considering that the White House hid the July 25 call—as well as a number of other calls—on a secret server designed to protect national security, it’s hard for me to believe they are doing any else than hiding this book with a similar argument.

You can see it in today’s news from Politico that Trump allies are so nervous about Trump’s falling poll numbers that they are holding events in black communities where organizers lavish praise on Trump as they hand out tens of thousands of dollars. (It is likely these are running afoul of federal elections laws, but since the Federal Elections Commission—the FEC—which is supposed to have six members, has fallen down to three during Trump’s term, it does not have a quorum and cannot meet.)

You can see it in the news tonight that it is likely Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has the votes he needs to make sure that, for the first time in American history, a Senate impeachment trial will not hear witnesses. If McConnell wins that vote on Friday, Senator John Thune (R-SD), the number two Republican in the Senate, says McConnell will quickly call the vote to acquit the president as early as Friday evening.

As I have written before, the Senate impeachment trial is just part of the continuing saga of this administration. The Ukraine Scandal broke just four months ago, and there are still nine more months before the election. Evidence continues to drop, with rumors circulating today, for example, that Bolton’s manuscript accuses Trump of working for the interests of another country rather than America.

Last night, in a rally in New Jersey, Trump brought up his border wall again in an echo of 2016. Once again, he assured the audience that “the beautiful wall… is going up at record speed,” and that “Mexico is, in fact, you will soon find out, paying for the wall, okay?” In another piece of news today, part of the border wall between the U.S. and Mexico that has been undergoing repairs fell over in 37-mph wind gusts and fell into Mexico.

8 Likes

I don’t think they’re going to call any witnesses. Romney and Collins are going to fall in line; acquittal will follow sometime Friday afternoon.

intemperate comment deleted

I agree. And then he’ll be able to preen and crow about his victory during his state of the union address. And then they’ll steal another election.

Democrats just refuse to fight back hard enough.

This shit here is crazy too:

5 Likes

They have to realize that eventually, they will not always be in the majority. How are they going to feel when the next Obama comes along?

3 Likes

I imagine they’ll feel even more angry and desperate to get power back in the right (white) hands than they did when the first one came along.

The largest white identity cult on earth (Republicans) knows its days are long gone if it plays fair. That bit of racial awareness has long accounted for a lot of the cheating they do to get elected.

6 Likes

They’re not in the majority now.

Republicans are, this very moment, creating the mechanism for a white, male, Xtian ruling class that will be able to hold power in the absence of even a veneer of electoral process.

4 Likes

Right. Govermental dismantlement and the appointing of young wingnut judges, just for starters.

Might things get bad enough that the rest of us wake up and push back in effective ways?

(Well yeah, eventually, but I’m hoping for a tidal backlash before “eventually.”)

3 Likes

Well, they’re trying. It’s far from certain that they succeed, thank God.

2 Likes

For months, Richardson, a professor of history at Boston College, has been writing a daily digest of all things impeachment, titled Letters From An American — and to her surprise, it’s attracted a something of a cult following. Adam Reilly and Peter Kadzis sat down with Richardson and talked about why she started her project, what it’s been like to be continually immersed in a story many people actively avoid, what she’s learned that she didn’t know before, and what the stakes are for American democracy as the Senate weighs its options.

8 Likes

It also bears repeating that, even the sanitized version of the call that was released by the White House is direct evidence of a felony. Trump solicited aid in an election from a foreign person with value above $25,000 (that threshold was lowered to $10,000 subsequently) in violation of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971.

With no witnesses and no other documents, the “transcript” that they claim shows Trump’s innocence in fact proves his guilt. All that would be necessary beyond that is to place a value on the aid requested from Zelensky in order to determine felony from misdemeanor. You can do that two ways: One, what was offered in exchange? ($400M in military aid and an oval office meeting); or two, direct value. Zelensky scheduled an interview with CNN’s Fareed Zacharia right after the phone call - how much is a 5 minute CNN segment on a presidential campaign rival worth? Hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars?

7 Likes

January 30, 2020 (Thursday)

Today in the Senate impeachment trial of President Donald Trump, senators submitted questions to presiding Chief Justice John Roberts, who read them aloud for either the House impeachment managers or the president’s lawyers to answer.

Over the course of the day, it became obvious that the defense didn’t feel the need to defend the president; they knew they have the votes to acquit him. So Republican senators and his lawyers continued to attack the Democrats and the Bidens, while Democrats and the House impeachment managers tried to shame the Republicans into defending the rule of law. It did not work. Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) illustrated the Republican approach when he tried to get the Chief Justice to read aloud the name of the alleged whistleblower and a staffer on the House Intelligence Committee, accusing them of plotting together to impeach the president. At that, Roberts balked and declined to read it. So Paul simply went outside—although he was not supposed to leave the chamber—and read it to reporters.

As pressure mounted for Republican senators to permit testimony, it was not the president on trial today; it was the Senate. Although the Republicans’ initial position was that the president had not done what he had been accused of, the House managers made such a convincing case—and the president’s defense team hardly a defense at all—that by the end of today it was entirely clear Trump had, in fact, tried to steal the 2020 election by withholding vital military aid from Ukraine until its leaders announced an investigation into the Bidens. Indeed, it was so clear that Tennessee Senator Lamar Alexander conceded everything. He even said Trump’s behavior was “inappropriate” and “undermines the principle of equal justice under the law.”

Indeed, it was so clear, Alexander said, there was no need for more witnesses, including John Bolton, whose testimony would simply prove what we already know.

But, Alexander went on to say, the president’s actions “do not meet the Constitution’s ‘treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors’ standard for an impeachable offense.” The answer, he says, is in the ballot box. (Since the whole point of the Ukraine Scandal was to cheat in the election, I am hugely suspicious of the Republican insistence on the ballot box as the solution to removing Trump.)

Alexander’s vote against allowing witnesses almost certainly means that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has the votes to reject witnesses and move quickly to acquit the president as soon as tomorrow or very early on Saturday morning, likely while most Americans are asleep. Tonight, Senator Susan Collins (R-ME) said she would vote in favor of hearing witnesses, but this is almost certainly what they call a “hall pass,” meaning that because her constituents want witnesses and she is both up for re-election and vulnerable, McConnell is letting her vote yes and will not retaliate for that vote. It is possible, and I would actually guess likely considering the language Alexander used, that McConnell got Alexander to vote no so that Collins could vote yes. While the vote is not yet a done deal-- Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) will not announce her decision until tomorrow morning—the outcome looks pretty certain.

This is where we are now. Few people thought the Republican-controlled Senate would convict the president, but I, anyway, thought they would acquit him after continuing to argue he was innocent. Instead, they have done something shocking. They have conceded that Trump did what he is accused of: he tried to smear his rival so he could win reelection in 2020, in a scheme that both apparently broke laws and also looks quite like what happened in 2016. But, they say, his actions do not constitute an impeachable offense.

While this might well have been the only way they could think of to get out from under the evidence the House had mustered, and away from calling witnesses after Bolton suggested he would testify that Trump had, in fact, done what the House alleged, the Senate has essentially said that Congress will not rein in the president no matter what he does. Trump, of course, has already said that the Constitution gives him “the right to do whatever I want,” and Senate Republicans have now agreed. As the president’s lawyers made claims for his expansive power during the Senate trial, House impeachment manager Adam Schiff warned that we are witnessing “a descent into constitutional madness.”

When will Trump ask another leader for a favor? What will he withhold or offer in return? What will he do to cheat in 2020? How will he undercut his opponent? To which countries will he turn for help to win reelection? It is not in his make up to be chastened; rather, he will be emboldened. Trade deals, treaties, the use of our soldiers, cyberwarfare from Russia or Saudi Arabia… it is now all on the table.

And, interestingly, while everyone was watching the trial today, Attorney General William Barr moved to solidify his control over lingering investigations from Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation of Russia’s interference in the 2016 election by naming Timothy Shea, one of his chief counselors, as the interim U.S. Attorney for Washington D.C. (Remember Barr also has appointed his own investigator, John Durham, to look into the origins of the Russia investigation.) This office is in charge of the cases against former Trump advisor Roger Stone, former Trump deputy campaign manager Rick Gates, and former national security advisor Michael Flynn. It is also in charge of the grand jury investigation into former acting FBI director Andrew McCabe, and of an investigation into former FBI director James Comey, both of whom Trump saw as his enemies.

This means that Shea and Barr will be in charge of investigations that likely will make the news before the 2020 election.

Tonight, Adam Schiff tweeted: “After two and half centuries of our nation’s history, it’s come to this: The President’s lawyers argue on the Senate floor that he can withhold aid, coerce an ally, and try to cheat in an election, and there’s nothing we can do about it. Our Founders would be aghast.”

Our Founders certainly would be aghast. And the president’s lawyers are wrong that there’s nothing we can do about it. We can continue to insist on a free and fair vote and on the rule of law in America.

We must.

5 Likes

So will their votes to acquit the President ultimately be a poisoned pill, or will they and Trump just get away with it all?

5 Likes

I hope for the former, but expect the latter.

4 Likes

I think I’m a little more hopeful, since the Republican swallowing of the Trump team’s story/pack-of-huge-lies is so blatantly cynical, self serving, power hungry, and so on. Surely a lot of people who thought Trump was okay or even great will see that and start thinking otherwise. Surely some of these senators will suffer the consequences of enough voters being fed up with their mendacity to finally vote them into (ha) the dustbin of history.

But yeah, as what I just wrote might suggest, I also feel that I’m clinging to whatever I can for hope. For a way to ward off cynicism.

7 Likes

I do hope you’re right… We need some hope right about now…

5 Likes

I think there is cause for optimism. If the senate vote plays out like expected, I anticipate that there will be a significant protest movement. I’m talking Occupy-level participation, but more focused on protests that directly hurt the key players in the astroturfing of the impeachment trial.

I’m watching the polls on the upcoming senate elections. I’m holding onto some vacation days so I can travel to key election states to be an observer or volunteer, since I don’t have to be present to vote. Georgia looks like it might actually be a good state to help in, since there are two seats up for grabs and Stacy Abrams showed that it can turn if the voter suppression can be countered.

9 Likes

Awesome! Thank you in advance for that kind of work. Wish I could get away and do that too. :+1:

6 Likes

:blush: I had an epiphany of sorts last election cycle. My state may get shafted in terms of both primary timing and weight of individual vote, but vote-by-mail is a powerful opportunity to get involved. Last time it was just calling madly for hours to help get out the vote for key elections. This cycle, I will be more hands-on.

7 Likes

I was 100% wrong. Romney and Collins were the only two republicans who didn’t fall in line.

I”m not very good at predictions I guess. Maybe I should question more of my assumptions.

5 Likes

9 Likes