I admit that Mitt Romney surprised me on this. Didn’t expect it. It’s easy to say that this is just a personal decision and it doesn’t matter. I don’t think that’s quite true. Obviously, Trump will be acquitted. Almost certainly Romney will be the only Republican who votes to convict the President. But a couple days ago I noted how much Republicans gain by their unanimity. That has a profound, opinion-shaping, normalizing effect.
There’s one line that jumped out at me. Romney said about how history will record his vote that “they will note merely that I was among the senators who determined that what the president did was wrong, grievously wrong.”
There’s a key point here. After the witness bar was surmounted, a number of Republican senators piped up and said well, he clearly did something wrong but it’s not wrong enough or it doesn’t matter or something else. Romney’s statement puts the lie to this in what I suspect is a pretty uncomfortable way, and one which will be damaging to at least a few reelection candidates in November. He’s saying, no, you weren’t willing to say he was wrong. You said it was fine. And that really is what they’re saying. Because they’re cowards and derelict in their duties.
There is a reasonable argument and one that I believe in that you can believe the President is guilty of wrongdoing but still have it come short of what is necessary for removal from office. I think you can also say the President is guilty but there are prudential reasons to refrain from removal. What you can’t say is that I will vote to block even hearing any witnesses. That doesn’t add up. That means you know it is very bad but you have different priorities. You don’t care.
Again, go back to what I wrote Monday. One party unanimously endorsing something has a profound impact. Yeah, Romney’s only one guy. But this is significant. It was so significant in the House that Justin Amash was basically run out of the party. The other Senators will have to react to this and for a significant number, it will be difficult.
Voting laws are enshrined in the constitution via the 15th, 19th, and 26th amendment. The 15th amendment is the one that is the equal protection clause which allows anyone regardless of their race to vote. The 19th amendment is that the suffrage amendment which grants women the right to vote. The 26th amendment lowers the age of voting to 18 years old. These are “rights” which we currently have. I merely want to posit that under the current state of things, while they are currently rights that are enshrined into laws via amendments, that they really are a privilege, which can be changed by the whim of the court. Republicans talk a great deal about how they want fairness.
But, when push comes to shove, they want the party-line vote. As Congressman Adam Schiff, chair of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, stated in his opening testimony, if he can’t be impeached, it makes him a monarch.
It takes just a simple majority in the Senate to pass a resolution. What’s to stop the Republican Senate from granting President Trump emergency powers? It has been said that “absolute power corrupts absolutely”.
We’ve already seen that with the Supreme Court who is more than willing to destroy certain protections that we take for granted if they go against their point of view. Shelby Vs Holder, in 2013, is not discussed very much by a media that doesn’t really seem to look at details and understand precedent.
Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in a majority opinion that the explicit discrimination that existed back when section 5 was designed is no longer prevalent, and, that the notion that certain districts would have to seek authorization to change their voting maps from a panel in Washington D.C., was Congress over-stepping their bounds.
More recently, The Supreme Court failed to rule on Obamacare also leaving the law enacted by Obama in-tact but without a mandate. President Trump has even been trying to publicly back-track since the law didn’t get completely overturned– claiming that only the unpopular mandate was challenged successfully. and that he was fighting for pre-existing conditions all along.
My point is even if something is an enshrined law– and something is giving people power that would not otherwise have it– there will be people who will try to go after it. They will try for decades. Don’t laugh at them. People will laugh at them. But, what they want is no secret. They do not want Democracy. They do not want to share power. Look no further than Karl Rove’s statement in 2014. He thought that the Republican party would have a “100-year majority.” We need to really replace this current group of Republicans with something different.
Look, I don’t like Democrats. I don’t like them as much as a number of Republicans. But, it’s not fair for one side to be playing by one set of rules, and another side to be playing by another. If we are teetering towards a dictatorship, it is only because that is what the GOP have been envisioning for many decades. Since the 1960s, we have seen an explosion of Democracy. People talk about the 1st wave, the 2nd wave, the 3rd wave, and the 4th wave of history, this is the 5th wave, the rise of the anti-Democratic right wing. We need to get back to a place where we can both play by the rules and have civilized disagreements.
Right now, during the impeachment inquiry, you’ve had a straight party-line vote against witnesses and documents, despite all the media kerfuffle about (R) Sen. Mitt Romney of Utah, Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska recently tried to clear up the record, to state that she does not personally dislike Trump, and has also made public comments saying that she would vote against witnesses. (R) Sen. Mitt Romney of Utah also has stated that he would stick to the original plan by the Senate and act to oppose witnesses. Susan Collins was the only one that said she was likely to support witnesses and during the impeachment trial she voted purely along party lines.
What else does this mean? In that very same video with CNN reporter Dana Bash, she states that Mitt Romney, Lisa Murkowski, and Susan Collins all publicly stated that they would potentially be open and interested in witnesses. What they said to their own constituents was an entirely different thing.
What they did in the Senate chamber was entirely another and they proved that they are purely party faithful. So, what I see as a situation is that we could have people potentially in power, who could claim that they support Democracy. You could have Adam Schiff as its valiant defender. The GOP could vote to overrule the House as a chamber that exists, do away with popular voting, and they could abuse their power. With the act of a majority vote, they would deem that they have done nothing wrong.
While it’s true that Trump faces many court obstacles, I believe that we have witnessed the willingness of the GOP to buck the trend of history. It is a sense of justice that we have witnesses and testimony during trials. The GOP, and, the most vulnerable senators, whom we are supposed to feel sympathy for, did not vote for a chance for fairness. I ask, if there is nothing to hide, then, why hide it?
What do you have to fear from prolonging this trial? Remember, Mick Mulvaney stated that elections have consequences as he initially confirmed the Ukraine plot, then, he later walked back his comments.
So, I ask that no matter what side you are on, that you do not take this question lightly. Even if you strongly disagree with Adam Schiff or the Democratic party. You need to ask yourself– where do you want this country to be in the next four years? Do you still want it to be the United States of America or the Republican States of America?
While it’s true that the Democrats under Eric Holder got a little giddy as the White House lawyer pointed out, the behavior from both sides is wrong, and, one wrong, doesn’t make a right.
Now, I will also point out that McConnell did later clarify that witnesses were a procedural question for later in the trial and that it would be discussed then. But, my question, is, what guarantee do we have that it will be done fairly? Everything was so far done among party-line votes. It has given Twitter users the impression that the trial was rigged. #GOPCoverUp was trending for a while (https://www.rawstory.com/2020/01/gopcoverup-trends-on-twitter-as-senate-republicans-are-blasted-for-sham-impeachment-trial/).
“If any amendments are brought forward to force premature opinions on mid-trial questions, I will move to table such amendments,” McConnell said in floor remarks, noting that his proposed trial resolution would postpone decisions on evidence until days into the proceedings.
“If a senator moves to amend the resolution in order to subpoena specific witnesses or documents, I will move to table such motions because the Senate will decide those questions later in the trial.”
So, we will see. Though, as it stands right now, if the Senate body of Republicans had the will to act in a certain way, they are acting 100% unified. I am reminded of many criticisms of mob-rule, that we are a Republic, not a Democracy. Yet, here we have Senators, who think they are beyond mob-rule, acting in a mob-like mentality. I would argue that is equally dangerous.
The national TV press is presently controlled by six major corporations that use their vast power to profiteer while attempting to destroy ideological enemies. The coverage of Donald Trump’s presidency has proved that statement beyond any reasonable doubt.
The stage was set early when a New York Times columnist wrote that because Mr. Trump was so loathsome (to him and his liberal colleagues), the basic tenets of fair journalism no longer applied. Get Trump was the new rule.
The mandate of an honest journalist is to seek the truth, even if the facts of a story go against your personal belief system. It is wrong to simply publish accusation and allegations, you must scrutinize all charges. If you cannot find solid facts to prove a story, you then must balance it – giving both sides equal weight.
Did that happen in the Russian-collusion situation? Of course not. The New York Times and Washington Post printed story after story damning the Trump operation. The network news and CNN took their cues from those liberal papers, constantly deriding the President and those who supported him.
Then Special Counsel Robert Mueller blew it all up. Federal investigators could find no evidence of collusion.
But no apology for unbalanced and fallacious coverage was heard from the corrupt national media. Instead, it segued into the shameful impeachment hysteria.
Please understand this: the primary reason the House of Representatives voted to impeach President Trump is that Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the Democrat members knew the national press would give them cover and blatant support. The media portrayed Adam Schiff and other anti-Trump zealots as heroes. This despite strong evidence the Ukraine whistle-blower secretly coordinated with Schiff, a blatantly political and deceptive act.
From the very beginning, there was no balanced coverage of the impeachment story, no attempt to put forth both sides or to provide perspective. Mr. Trump was portrayed as guilty of “high crimes” in the Times and Post, as well as on television, in Hollywood, and in the publishing industry. Any high profile person who had the temerity to disagree was mocked or worse.
The cold truth is that the men who preside over The New York Times and The Washington Post, and they are all men, believe THEY should be running the United States, not Donald Trump, who is a vulgarian in their eyes. These men well know the Democratic Party will blindly follow their editorial lead as will TV news executives at CNN, NBC, ABC, and CBS.
Thus, the so called “free press” in America has become an industry that now seeks power over Americans. The far left vision these operations usually champion cannot be realized at the ballot box, the bosses know that. So it must be imposed by destroying progressive opposition, which the media does with enthusiasm. Just ask Brett Kavanaugh.
The key question is: how many of us realize what is actually happening with the dishonest, power mad media?
Impossible to say. But for those who do understand the corruption, the danger to American freedom is obvious.
And that is why I have come to despise my own industry.
According to roanoake.com, California’s anti-SLAPP law lets defendants strike down lawsuits before litigations occur when it comes to free speech, but, Virginia does not offer such protections. Courts have ruled that when it comes to “heaping ridicule among public figures”– it is not protected, when, that is a parody.
Among the lawsuits are parody accounts Devin Nunes’s cow, and, Devin Nunes‘ Mom, both @DevinCow, and @mom_nunes, respectively. The attorney for the plaintiff in the case is trying to get the case dismissed.
“Both of these anonymous Twitter accounts are blatant parody accounts,” Surovell’s motion states (who is an attorney in the case for the defense’s side). “No reasonable person would believe that Devin Nunes’ cow actually has a Twitter account, or that the hyperbole, satire and cow-related jokes it posts are serious facts. It is self-evident that cows are domesticated livestock animals and do not have the intelligence, language, or opposable digits needed to operate a Twitter account. Moreover, by purporting to be from a cow, with the excessive use of cow puns and cow imagery, it is plainly evident that it is not a serious news outlet.”
Surovell, also states that among other things, Nunes hasn’t done enough work to compile supporting material to subpoena the owners of the accounts. It would seem that the intent of the lawsuits are to try to stop people from expressing a negative point of view about Nunes. The point of a SLAPP lawsuit is to harass the intended victims rather than to outright sue. It should also be noted that Devin Nunes’s cow had less than 1,000 followers before the lawsuit and afterwards, the follower-count for the account skyrocketed to easily over 100,000 (roanoke.com). By going after people with libel-lawsuits, it might be more expensive for the less-wealthy victims, but, there’s also a chance for the victims in the lawsuits that might overcome it.
I should note– that I am personally followed by Devin’s Cow on Twitter. Being followed by the cow has no bearing on my personal opinion on this case. I understand Devin Nunes’s point of view, and, I see the cow posting things that he might not like. However, he is a public figure, and people who are public figures are subject to stricter scrutiny with the actual malice test. That’s why parody is protected. Writing this piece was difficult, because, of how many people that Devin Nunes sues. But, public officials need to be held to account. I’m sure that he would agree with that.
I should also note that as I was writing this piece– Devin Nunes ended up suing CNN for their report about him being involved in the Ukraine impeachment scandal on the wrong side of things. The initial CNN report claimed that Devin Nunes spoke with Lev Parnas about Ukraine, he said that he did not speak to Lev Parnas in the lawsuit about such matters, and reporting shows that he was on the call record with Lev Parnas during the transcripts. In one call, he was on the phone for more than 8 minutes.
Update: I updated the article for purely style purposes only.
This week’s impeachment hearings have plenty of bluster and tap-dancing by Republicans desperate to shift focus away from Donald Trump’s wrongdoings.
It’s a clown show, to be sure, but no matter what the outcome from the hearings, Americans deserve this process. Every single Republican who supports Trump should be forced to say as much, on the record, for the history books. That shame should follow them.
But we can’t expect impeachment to save us. It won’t: The damage to our democracy has been done, and no matter how or when Trump leaves office, we’ll need to have a major reckoning that goes beyond the Hill.
Because the racism, misogyny, and corruption that has defined this presidency is not just about the president; it’s about every Republican that let it happen, every American who cast a vote for a bigot, every Fox News host that lied to their audience. Really, it’s about all of us.
An impeachment won’t grant us absolution from operating concentration camps.
This week, the Southern Poverty Law Center reported on White House senior policy advisor Stephen Miller, whose leaked emails show disturbing ties to white nationalist propaganda and thinking. Miller’s racism has been well-known, but the emails make his bigotry inarguable. SPLC looked at over 900 emails sent between 2015 and 2016 to the white nationalist website Breitbart, most of which were about race and immigration. An impeachment won’t change the fact that a white supremacist has been shaping American immigration policy for years.
We also learned this week that the U.S. has detained and held 70,000 migrant children over the last year— an atrocity that will, and should, define America for generations. Babies and toddlers have been separated from their parents, causing irreparable harm and trauma. Children have been denied soap and diapers, with seven-year-olds trying to care for infants who have been torn from their mothers’ arms. An impeachment won’t grant us absolution from operating concentration camps.
The FBI reported this weekthat hate crimes in this country have hit a 16-year high, with an increase in attacks against Latinos, and physical assaults. We can get rid of a president who calls Mexicans rapists and nonwhite countries “shitholes,” but an impeachment won’t reduce the hate that has been stoked and encouraged over the last few years.
The president has been accused of rape or sexual assault by two dozen women. He has mocked these women as too ugly to rape, or liars and opportunists, even though his own behavior and words have backed up their stories. This accused rapist nominated Brett Kavanaugh, a man accused of sexual assault, to the Supreme Court, where he will sit until he dies. Trump has also nominated a record 43 appeals court judges and 99 district court judges, many of whom seem either too unqualified or ideologically extreme to hold such lofty positions. An impeachment won’t stop women from having to live with the leadership and decisions of men who hate and hurt them.
None of this is to say that the impeachment hearings and process are all in vain. They’re not. But the finger-crossing and hope that some have attached to impeachment feel so far removed to the deeper issues we need to grapple with. The shame of these past three years will remain whether Trump is in office or not. Impeachment is a necessity, but it’s far from a solution.
The Washington Ledger 