What Kurt Eichenwald says – Saving the Republic
What Kurt Eichenwald says – Saving the Republic
When I’m not reading and writing about the economy, I do occasionally comment elsewhere on political topics.
So it was on Thursday when, in response to this post asserting that Democrats were powerless to do anything – (including enforcing THEIR OWN GODDAM SUBPOENAS!) – and that it was “green lantern-ism” to believe otherwise, I decided I had had enough (see comment #25), for which I was called a “kook” and a disloyal Democrat. It would “hand the President a public relations victory,” it would have “undesirable optics,” and wouldn’t show “comity.”
Worse, most of these people – presumably people paying attention to the news – didn’t know that each House of Congress, like courtroom judges, have the the power of “inherent contempt,” meaning that they don’t have to ask a prosecutor to bring a case for contempt, they can imprison a non-compliant witness, obtain a conviction from the full House, and continue that imprisonment until the witness agrees to obey their subpoena.
Well, if I am a “kook” for wanting Congress to enforce its powers, so is Kurt Eichenwald of the New York Times, who has been absoluletely ON FIRE this week. Unfortunately, since twitter unrolls don’t play nice with blogger, I can’t reproduce it here, but go read the whole threads, here, here, and here.
And, while you are at it, read this 2015 article by Matt Yglesias about how, even then, “the United States was now exhibiting 11 of the 13 telltale signs of a fascist dictatorship,” and its scheme of Constitutional democracy is likely to fall in the near future.
It is simply ghastly that people like Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden think all we need to do is elect Democrats in 2020 and all will be well. HELL, no!
Donald Trump has once and for all exposed the fact that the US has a Presidential autocracy, so long as the President has 1/3 of the Senate +1 unwilling to stop them (because you need 2/3’s of the Senate to Convict in Impeachment or to overturn an Emergency declaration).
If the Republic does not succumb to Trump, Constitutional Amendments need to be proposed most of all to rein in Presidential power, and to do so without necessity of Impeachment. That means, at very least, Courts being able to enforce Congressional prerogatives on an expedited basis, and Congress and/or the States (via governors or attorneys general) being able to compel lower Executive Branch officials to enforce laws and regulations, under pains of fines or improsisonment. And Presidents should not be able to pardon current or former Executive branch officials from their term in office.
—
P.S. I just gone done reading “How Democracies Die,” by Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt. I also just finished reading two books about the Roman Republic (which lasted 450 years, and was stable for the first 375), and how it ultimately fell into tyranny. It turns out that many of the themes discussed by Levitsky and Ziblatt were front and center in that ancient Republic as well, which hopeufully will shortly be an opus on a Sunday here.
The lack of action by the Dem House is simply horrible. Just as horrible is the supposed reasons(sic) for their lack of action. That being the idea that there would be a voter backlash in response to impeachment and contempt charges.
That is simply the most ridiculous thought in the world.
Everybody that is going to vote for trump is going to vote for trump. There will be no more turnout as a result of the House actually doing its job. Moreover, impeachment hearings and contempt charges may well increase Dem turnout.
Always a big fan of Pelosi, but her actions are intolerable.
EMichael:
As I have said before, Pelosi is an excellent tactician but a horrible strategist. Here’s the link:
http://bonddad.blogspot.com/2019/05/nancy-pelosi-is-able-tactician-but-poor.html
Give her a battle, and she will find the best way to 218 votes. But winning the war? She is next to clueless as to how to maneuver the set pieces into place. Read the quote from her near the end of the piece I linked to above.
“At the risk of sounding a bit repetitive, Democratic leaders must come to grips with who and what Donald Trump is—and the nature of the Republican Party he leads—before this crew tramples what’s left of the republic. One of our two major political parties is now an authentic authoritarian outfit, where the political playbook at both the state and federal levels consists of using the mechanisms of democracy to strangle the popular will and entrench minority rule. Anything is acceptable if it helps you maintain your grip on power.
Just as important, every party official now marches in lockstep with The Leader, who will do anything he feels will benefit him personally as long as there are no concrete consequences. This is how Trump has behaved his entire life—strong-arming opponents, bending or breaking the law, using mobspeak to hint at the quid pro quo—and gotten away with it, except now he is President of the United States. The authoritarian knows only force, and until Democrats impose consequences for the president’s behavior in the form of legal force, Trump will continue to break the law and destroy institutions of the republic until the landscape of our politics is unrecognizable.
So far, Democrats have completely failed to make Trump believe there will be repercussions if he breaks the law or violates his oath to defend the Constitution. The Mueller Report detailed multiple instances in which the president blatantly attempted to obstruct justice in an investigation into whether he and his associates accepted help from a hostile foreign power in 2016. Democrats chose not to impeach the president, despite the fact that he’d broken the law repeatedly, and so far have failed to even call many of the key witnesses to testify before Congress.
Advertisement – Continue Reading Below
No wonder, then, that Trump reportedly called the Ukrainian president the day after Mueller’s testimony and hinted, likely in mobspeak, that he would hold up $250 million in military aid until they got to work investigating Trump’s political opponent. There were no consequences for what we learned about Trump’s activities in 2016 and during the subsequent investigation, so why would there be consequences if he got up to the same—or more—in 2020? And in between, he has continued to destroy the separation of powers that forms the essential architecture of our Constitution and relentlessly profited from his office.
Democratic leadership, led by Speaker Nancy Pelosi, has thus far held the line that the best way to rid the republic of Trumpism is to defeat Trump at the ballot box in 2020. But this rests on a number of tenuous premises, not least that the elections will be free and fair. Domestically, the Republican Party will work overtime using the time-tested shenanigans: voter purges, voter suppression, closing polling places, old-fashioned ratf!cking. And now the president has essentially put up a neon sign for the world’s shadiest operators: do me a favor and ratfuck my opponent, and there could be something in it for you down the line. Bonus points if you put money in my pocket at one of my hotels. He said we were waiting for word from the Saudis on whether the U.S. military should strike Iran, for Christ’s sake.
The simple fact is that the president is lawless and must be made accountable to the law, or his lawlessness will continue to spread and metastasize. Democrats must initiate impeachment proceedings against him on the basis that he has betrayed the republic and violated his oath of office. Along the way, they should call every witness they need and hold those who refuse to testify in contempt. They should literally be held in jail. Those who do testify but make a mockery of proceedings, like Corey Lewandowski did last week, should also be held in contempt.
The president is not going to suddenly see the light and stop doing crimes because they’re the wrong thing to do. He will stop doing crimes if someone stops him from doing crimes. This is what he’s up to more than a year out from the election. What will he do between now and November if he is not held accountable, particularly when he knows that a failure to win reelection could mean a federal indictment?
Democratic leaders have also relied on the excuse that impeachment will not succeed in the Senate even if the House initiates proceedings. This is also absurd, particularly if you’re banking on winning the next election. Impeachment hearings function as an airing of the president’s misconduct, putting it on blast for the whole nation to see. Just 19 percent of the public supported impeaching Richard Nixon when the Watergate hearings began. By the time he resigned, it was 57 percent, because people learned the extent of his treachery. Support for Trump’s impeachment already hovers between 35 and 38 percent.
And along the way, it’s not just the president who will come under pressure for what he’s done. Senate Republicans will have to defend their defense of a criminal president, some of them while they’re running for reelection. Does Cory Gardner want to defend the president’s behavior while defending his seat in purple Colorado? Also, if you care about that kind of thing, they’ll have to live out the rest of their lives knowing they, too, betrayed everything they claimed to hold dear to stay in favor with The Base.
Simply put, Democrats must impeach Trump because he has likely committed high crimes and misdemeanors. It is the right thing to do in defense of the republic. But it will also be good election-year politics as they try to sink Trump and take the Senate, without which any Democratic legislative agenda is dead on arrival. The only reason they wouldn’t, at this point, is that they are afraid. Or maybe Pelosi and her leadership team still think they’re playing chess when Trump and his crew upended the board years ago.”
Jack Holmes Politics Editor
https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a29188688/democrats-must-impeach-donald-trump/
EM:
I am part of a homeowners association. Every year there are dues of $125. In the beginning it was $25 which is nothing when you have to maintain parts of a subdivision. So we set out to increase it and a few people were annoyed they might have to pay more. To undercut them, myself and another person went out to the 60 of the homes we could find at home and got them to sign our request so we could do it. We needed 40 signatures and got 42. The other 18 were neither not home or we bypassed because they opposed it. One board member decided to contact the opposition. So we said have at it, we are through. He did get 6 more signatures. We increased to $50 a year because of the effort.
This year we had one person again who refused to pay the dues. In the pasts there were threats of placing a lien on their property along with costs to do so and interest to be paid. They never did it as none of them wanted to do so. At the last yearly gathering, the Pres suggested there would be fines if people did not comply to rules within the sub. I can see that happening if they do not taking action on one person not paying dues.
If Democrats want any respect, stop the threats and take action. If someone will not answer questions, toss them in jail just like Starr did with one person during the Clinton impeachment efforts. Trump knows we are not going to do squat. Prove him wrong and frustrate the heck out of him by doing so.
Kudos to at least one Republican.
“Well, Bill Weld, former governor of the Commonwealth (God save it!), really shot the moon to begin the week. Appearing on MSNBC, Weld made it plain. From the Washington Post:
“Talk about pressuring a foreign country to interfere with and control a U.S. election,” Weld said during an appearance on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.”
“It couldn’t be clearer, and that’s not just undermining democratic institutions. That is treason. It’s treason, pure and simple, and the penalty for treason under the U.S. code is death. That’s the only penalty…The penalty under the Constitution is removal from office, and that might look like a pretty good alternative to the president if he could work out a plea deal.””
Well, all right, then.
Here we all are, piddling around with why Nancy Pelosi won’t release the hounds in the House of Representatives, and waiting for some poor bastard in intelligence to come forward with what he really knows, and with a vulgar talking yam still in office. Meanwhile, Bill Weld has cut right to the heel of the hunt. You think you can’t scare this guy? Put the gallows in his eyes. I mean, wow.”
https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a29191267/president-trump-treason-bill-weld/
I beg to disagree. The republic can survive four years of Donald Trump. The republic cannot survive eight years of Donald Trump. If impeaching Trump makes it more likely that he gets eight years rather than four, then impeachment without a conviction will effectively give us the worst of all possible worlds. And yes, as bad as four years of Trump might be, Trump Unbound after re-election would be far worse. At this point we’re in damage control. The Founders were lousy political scientists and gave us a weak tool for removing a dictator-wannabee. We’re stuck with it. And Republican senators are political cowards. We’re stuck with that fact of life as well. Democrats need to stay focused on winning the WH in 2020…nothing else matters. We can deal with Trump the private citizen far easier than Trump the president. Just remember, as bad as things are, they could be much worse. A good way to make them much worse is to act impulsively and re-elect Trump after whipping up his base. First things first. When back the WH and then indict private citizen Trump.
As to Congress’ power to throw people in jail for contempt. It is true that at one time this was something that Congress did; however, my understanding is that the courts have effectively removed that power for lots of complicated legal reasons.
My point is that impeachment will in no way, shape of form help trump in the election. On the contrary, I believe it will increase Dem voter turnout.
In terms of contempt, It is not an easy process as you have to win the vote in the House and then get a US Attorney involved. But there is a chance of prison.
“The punishments that go along with being held in contempt of Congress can include a criminal referral to a US attorney, which can result in severe punishments maxing out at either fines of up to $100,000 or one year in prison..”
https://www.businessinsider.com/what-is-contempt-of-congress-attorney-general-william-barr-mueller-report-2019-5
You’re being naïve if you think impeachment will improve the Dems chances of winning the WH. Yes, it will drive up turnout in blue states, but you can only win those once. Nancy Pelosi understands that calculus. Our stupid Founders gave us this idiotic Electoral College, so we’re stuck with it. Trump won in 2016 by attracting knuckle draggers in a few key rust belt states. They might vote for a Joe Biden, but they’ll never vote for a Sen. Warren even if doing so would be in their interests. Just not going to happen. The best you can hope for is that they stay home on election day, and to accomplish that you have to keep quiet about impeaching Trump. The people that voted for Trump might realize they made a mistake, but you don’t need to do things that make them feel defensive about it. That just makes them react against you. If you care about the country, then you need to set aside what might gratify you personally and start thinking strategically. I’m afraid that way too many Democrats would flunk the famous marshmallow test. And you always need to keep in mind that half the voters have an IQ under 100. A nitwit’s vote counts just as much as an informed, intelligent voter.
“If the Republic does not succumb to Trump, Constitutional Amendments need to be proposed most of all to rein in Presidential power, and to do so without necessity of Impeachment.”
If Sanders gets elected this is exactly what will happen between October and January. Just like North Carolina did.
Paradan:
Welcome to Angry Bear. First time comments always go to moderations to weed out spam, spammers and advertising.
My two cents are that Trump won Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin largely because a greater percentage of his supporters turned out than Clinton supporters and because he won an overwhelming percentage of those voters who disliked both and bothered to vote. This was the result of years of efforts to paint Clinton as corrupt and unlikable which she was singularly ineffective at countering. Indeed I would argue that if Trump had run against a “ some dude” Democrat he would have lost and try as he might he is very unlikely to duplicate that feat this time around. He will certainly get his racist base to turn out whether he is impeached or not, and we know he is able to raise massive sums of money from the American oligarchs no matter what he does, but I think there are a lot of weak Republicans—suburban soccer moms who will not vote for him this time around and a lot of independents who voted for him the last time around as the lesser of two evils who will not do that again. The real key will be nominating a Democrat who can inspire maximum turnout of the Democratic base—something Obama did and Clinton did not. IMHO impeaching Trump will lead to a greater change in Democratic base voters than Trump base voters. Further I really do not think folks like Cory Gardner are going to like running re-election campaigns on the basis that he did not hold a president who damaged national security for his personal interests accountable. At the same time I at least am done giving to the national Democrats until and unless they perform their constitutional duty regardless of politics. Indeed, the failure of the Democrats to impeach Trump is every bit as bad as the Republicans who continue to support him. The strongest Democratic demographic other than African Americans is young people who tend not to turn out and who are pretty cynical about politics as well. The Democrats are not inspiring these folks by putting their perceived political calculus above their constitutional responsibilities.
Well, if I was planning the 2020 Democratic Presidential campaign I would want the impeachment hearings to be in full swing, on national television, seizing the attention of the electorate beginning in the spring of 2020 and running through the summer, into the fall and then instead of having the thing sent to die in the Senate, you wrap it all up in a bow and empower all the voters to out there and act as jurors in November. Trump obviously is doing everything he can to avoid this scenario and would like to see the process get underway so that he can fight it out now on Fox News, turn the whole thing into a circus and hope that fatigue sets in by next summer. Pelosi is doing her best rope a dope but the pressure is mounting and she will be very lucky if she can hold out until this November. She would much prefer February I am sure. But perhaps they can hold the nation’s attention for a year. I’m not so sure. I think that is one of our real weaknesses right now as a culture. We have the attention span of a gnat and anything that starts now is going to be considered old news in 14 months.
“If Sanders gets elected . . . ”
LOL! Which will happen coterminous with the first verified report of porcine aviation.
Psst Joel:
I inserted the 2nd o in coterminous. I did not want anyone to miss the proper usage of such a pretentious word. 🙂
“First, the president* and his administration* are willing to run their bluffs and spread their bluster until he brings the temple down on his own head. They are not going to cooperate. They are not going to provide documents. They are not going to respond to subpoenas.
Second, the Republicans in Congress are completely with the program and utterly hopeless as possible allies, and the Republicans in the administration* are a hapless chorus of cowards.
Third, the Department of Justice is utterly corrupt and utterly in the bag for a renegade presidency*.
Fourth, any action against this president* is going to have to come from the Democrats, and it’s going to have to be fierce and unilateral. They are going to have to stop caring about “dividing the country.” They are going to have to stop caring whether or not Max Rose gets reelected in 2020. They are going to have to come out, fiercely and unilaterally, against international bribery and extortion from the Oval Office as legitimate strategies in domestic political campaigns. What might happen is no longer relevant. The crisis is what is happening, right now, in plain view.
Once again, we have to draw strength from Ulysses S. Grant in the Wilderness:
“Oh, I am heartily tired of hearing about what Lee is going to do. Some of you always seem to think he is suddenly going to turn a double somersault, and land in our rear and on both of our flanks at the same time. Go back to your command, and try to think what we are going to do ourselves, instead of what Lee is going to do.”
This should not be that difficult. Clock’s ticking.”
https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a29196287/democrats-impeach-donald-trump-ukraine-international-corruption/
Actually doing impeachment will make it unavoidable to cover Trump’s defense in an intense way. Trump is going to have a first-rate defense…it won’t be Giuliani and Sekulow. The House process can be highly controlled (hypothetically, anyway). At the end of that you get a vote and if Trump wins it, that is big win for him. If he loses it, the Senate goes into action and the news will be dominated by his defense, except closer to the election. You should not think that the downside to Democrats is limited simply to the Senate not convicting and removing Trump. Impeaching Trump is taking an ownership position in the Trump/Russia process and if that is okay then do it but it is not risk-free.
Name me a competent lawyer that has ever represented Trump.
Cohen? Cohn? Giuliani? Barr?
No competent, non ideolgically controlled lawyer wants to get within a hundred yards of him.
There is the matter of public support for impeachment. Up until the Ukraine extortion issue, the polling has been consistently opposed, by a substantial majority, to proceeding. This issue may turn the tide as even the Republicans are avoiding comment or conceding that investigation is appropriate. It took revelation of the White House tapes to get the public behind impeaching Nixon.