Past Tense

My next column in The Everett Herald:

I’m old enough to remember when Patrick Henry, during the Constitutional Convention, expressed concern about a too-powerful executive:

“If your American chief be a man of ambition…, how easy is it for him to render himself absolute! … and, sir, will the American spirit solely relieve you when this happens?”  

And I’ll never forget James Madison’s answer: 

“There is one security in this case…; if the President be connected, in any suspicious manner … the House of Representatives can impeach him; they can remove him if found guilty… This is a great security.”  

Or maybe I’m remembering a time when Americans considered those concepts to be of vital importance, and so did their proxies in Congress. The questions are at the heart of what became the United States: in what institutions should power reside, and in what proportions; in what way can that power be held in check; and, when necessary, how should its abuse be redressed?  

What I definitely remember is that during the Clinton impeachment, Senators Tom Daschle and Trent Lott, leaders of their respective parties, negotiated rules for the trial that were approved by all one-hundred senators. The proceedings included witnesses and some ninety-thousand documents Clinton had delivered, as asked. Because of course it did.  

Midnight-in-Moscow Mitch involved no Democrats. Rather than honoring the trust our founders placed in Congress, Mitch’s oath-breaking trial, rigged to ensure exoneration, looks to be about renouncing that trust and ignoring the abuses that worried Mr. Henry, in the face of which, if they occurred, Mr. Madison assured the assembly that his remedy would preserve the Republic.  

Barring an outbreak of integrity to which Republican Congress-people have so far shown remarkable immunity, the conclusion is foregone. Fittingly, Trump’s most Foxworthy lawyers joined Republicans who were involved last time around, manufacturing breathtaking reversals: back then, Starr argued that obstruction of Congress in an impeachment inquiry was itself an impeachable act. Dershowitz of yore insisted that the committing of specific crimes was not required for impeachment. What happened? Trump. Like an oil spill, Trump happened.  

On day one, Team Trump declared the Constitution unconstitutional. That’s what it means when impeachment is characterized as an attempt to undo an election, and, even more audaciously, to abolish our right to vote. Likewise, claiming it’s Democrats who rigged the process, and, as Trump has whined, that he wasn’t treated fairly in the House impeachment. Bullwash. Trump was offered all the time he wanted, and all the documents and witnesses he wished to produce. He stonehenged. 

Aiming past the chamber and into the heads of the Foxified, Trump’s lawyers lied repeatedly; asserting Republicans were excluded from depositions; that Trump wasn’t invited to examine witnesses; and, invoking the orphan/chutzpah circularity, because Trump blocked witnesses and documents, demanding them now means Democrats have no case. Also: “Trump is a man of his word.”  

Beyond declaring the Constitution null and void, all they had was to claim Trump did nothing wrong. Not arguing that he didn’t seek to extort President Zelensky for his own political purposes: he did. But it was perfectly fine, they said. He hates corruption, they said. While holding a “For Sale” sign picturing the Brooklyn Bridge.  

Do Republicans prefer unlimited presidential power, or not? Do they believe Americans should hear all relevant evidence in something as momentous as impeachment, or not? No matter their answers, their current cover-up proves they know Trump is guilty and don’t care. Trump’s proves he knows, too. 

Not one Republican Senator voted to allow important new evidence. None of Trump’s lawyers offered a compelling reason why. Their refusal proves their contempt for all Americans, including Trump’s supporters. Not to mention the Constitution.  

Unconcerned, Trump’s lawyers defended executive privilege to justify refusing Congressional subpoenas. There will always be disagreements about limits on such privilege. But to claim there are none, especially regarding impeachment, arguably the most consequential action Congress can undertake other than declaring war, is to remove all constraints on presidential power. Given Republicans’ behavior to date, this is unsurprising; but it couldn’t be more at odds with their favorite shibboleths: “original intent” and “the rule of law.” 

Why are no true conservatives demanding that Republicans show spine? Because none remain. Didn’t they exist, once, or am I misremembering that, too? 

Grave as it is, impeachment demands abandoning cynical arguments. If a “president” can block all evidence of malfeasance, “how easy is it for him to render himself absolute!”

[Image source]

The Monkey House

My next column in The Everett Herald:

As impeachment heats up, memes are hopping around cyberspace like bedbugs at Mar-a-Lago. A few, paraphrased:  

“Trump and Republicans would have us believe people willing to testify under oath are liars, and those who refuse are truth-tellers.” Or: “If someone has information that would exonerate you, why would you prevent them from testifying?” Also: “The perpetrator of a coup takes power. If it’s really a coup, it’s Pence.” Best: “The house is on fire, Trump is lighting matches, and Republicans are demanding to know who called the fire department.” 

On what basis can a “president” prevent people from appearing before Congress as it carries out its Constitutional oversight duties? Would he have them arrested? Under the aegis of what laws? Can a “president” order a citizen not to speak? Isn’t there something about that in the Bill of Rights? (Okay, under the Bill of Barr, we know it could happen.)  

When Susan McDougal ignored a subpoena by Republicans chasing Bill Clinton’s penis around D.C., she went to jail. Why not now? Maybe because the party that no longer believes in enforcing the Constitution currently controls the DOJ. If Democrats ordered arrests, Barr would simply ignore them. What’s past is prologue.  

Perhaps more than any event, impeachment exposes political hypocrisy. It also reveals the limited understanding voters have of why the process exists or how it works. That hypocrisy, mated with reinforced ignorance, is a powerful brew which too many people, particularly the Foxified, find pleasingly potable. Our pal Lindsey Graham has become the primary chef de cuisine. As the former prosecutor of the Senate trial of Bill Clinton’s impeachment, and much holier than we, he should know better. Which means whatever Trump has on him is more powerful than fairy dust. 

To wit: When Gordon Sondland testified he knew of no attempted extortion, Republicans lauded him as the ender of the Democrats’ game. Subsequently, as others revealed how Sondland lied, and going to jail wasn’t what he thought he’d bought with his million-dollar investment in Trump, leading to “clarification,” Graham wondered “was there a connection” with Democrats. Figuring, one assumes, anyone telling the truth is either a Democrat or cahooting with them.  

As if that piece of cogito-gymnasty wasn’t enough, Lindsey then stated, “I consider any impeachment in the House that doesn’t allow us to know who the whistleblower is to be invalid.” After such a bull-shot aimed at the selectively stupid, a reality-check is needed. 

For reasons so obvious that enumeration is unnecessary, whistleblowers’ identities are protected by law. Moreover, by now it doesn’t matter who the whistleblower is: everything he or she reported has been corroborated, severally. So what do Republicans get from outing him/her? Intimidation of the next potential truth-teller, is what. It’s the horse-head in the bed. It’s how mobsters behave; people who’ll do whatever it takes to keep insiders from turning state’s evidence and upping their jig. 

Same with crocodile tears about the pre-impeachment investigations. Like a grand jury, what’s done is assessing, securely, evidence of possible crimes. If convincing, the process becomes public. Which, for fairness to all parties, is exactly how it should work. Not investigating possible malfeasance by any president would be dereliction of Congress’s Constitutional duty.  

If the House impeaches, the Senate becomes a jury, with House members as prosecutors. Evidence is presented, witnesses are called. The Senate convicts or doesn’t. Neither Lick-boot Lindsey nor any individual, including the “president,” gets to decide what invalidates the process. Only by Constitutional amendment could the system be changed. 

To be clear: attempted extortion of a vulnerable country trying to defend itself against Trump’s pal and America’s enemy, Putin, successful or not, is a signal example of why impeachment is a Constitutionally-defined remedy. It’s also worth noting that what any Biden did or did not do is immaterial to whether the “president” did what he did. Nor does wising up at the last minute nullify the attempt. Failed bank robbers serve time, too.  

Anyone who thinks Republicans are serious about truth must watch Devin Nunes’ opening statement at Wednesday’s public hearing. Calling it “unhinged” insults doorways everywhere. Short of massive public outrage – if that -- nothing will force integrity on Congressional Republicans. Virtually all have pre-excused Trump; Lindsey Graham says he doesn’t even need to see the evidence. 

In codifying impeachment, our founders presumed Congressional commitment to a purpose higher than themselves. Sadly, they didn’t foresee today’s elected Republicans.  

[Image source]

To "I" Or Not To "I." That IS The Question

My next newspaper column:

Impeachment. There’s a political argument, to the “no” side of which Nancy Pelosi seems committed; and there’s a constitutional argument, for which the rational position is “yes.” It’s a monumental call.  

Were the House of Representatives to embark upon preparing a case, there’d be one of those storms the prefix of which was shared by Trump in his characterization of certain African countries. His tweet-thumbs would burst into arthritic flame, Fox “news” anchors’ rage would deoxygenate the entire troposphere, and melting TV screens in Trump-country would leak pixels like lava. 

If inquiries revealed murdered prostitutes and rubles by the millions in a Lincoln bedroom closet, the Senate would still acquit, McConnell’s grin would reflect eating the afore-hinted substance, and Fox’s Three Dolts on a Divan would praise Trump’s housekeeping skills. 

But there are times that demand principled bravery. Hills on which to die. If they don’t include trying to save our Constitutional Republic, nothing does. That impeachment of Donald J. Trump, serial liar, perjurer (in writing!), ongoing obstructer of justice, who comforts our enemies and threatens our friends, who calls treasonous (which requires putting to death) the constitutionally-empowered investigators of possible crimes by him, his campaign, and his administration; demands his underlings ignore legal subpoenas from a co-equal branch of government; calls for jailing political opponents; hires a sycophantic, dishonest Attorney General; undermines the mainstays of our democracy – voting, press freedom, and education; sabotages separation of powers the way any tin-pot dictator would; is prone to petulant rages leading to hair-trigger “policy” given less than a millisecond’s thought, likely to be reversed hours later; that these offenses cry out for impeachment is understood by all who consider the Constitution a still-relevant document, intended to protect us all. 

Do I write run-on sentences? Very well, then, I write run-on sentences.  

Impeachment would be a political risk for Democrats. A huge one. The aftermath could see Republicans regain both chambers and reelect Trump, which would be the final nail in the climate-coffin, seal the permanent loss of women’s rights, LGBT rights, minority civil and voting rights, equal rights of non-Christians. Minority views on nearly all issues, confirmed by ideological judges, would become entrenched, and those of us sharing ideals held by a majority of Americans could do nothing about it. A high price, indeed. And yet...  

As strep requires penicillin, so does Trump require impeachment. Congressional Democrats arguing for it, trying to convince Speaker Pelosi, are, in effect, announcing they care less about their careers than about upholding the fundamental principles of the United States of America, constituted as and which must remain a country where autocracy is held in check by respect for our laws; where “the people’s house” is able to restrain a lawless, power-hungry, mendacious leader; where those conditions that have led to dictatorships elsewhere are not allowed to take hold here. We are, they’re saying, willing to die on that hill. That’s actual, definitional patriotism. As opposed to the manipulated, phony sideshow of Trump’s rallies.  

During impeachment proceedings, Americans would hear witnesses to Trump’s unconstitutional actions, backed by layers of evidence. They wouldn’t need to read the Mueller report or seek out partisan punditry. Unfiltered by right-wing media, William Barr’s deceptions, or a Trumpic torrent of tweets, facts would be laid bare. There’d be more than enough to result in a House vote for impeachment; but, inevitable as Trump’s next lie, Mitch McConnell’s Senate would roll over, leaving him in office.  

And then, having seen with their own eyes, voters would face an existentially consequential choice: return to office those courageous enough to have impeached, while voting out those cowardly or avaricious enough to have refused removal; or the other way around. If the latter, then what many us have been warning about will have been realized. 

In failure, impeachment will have forced the sad truth upon us sooner, hastening recognition that America has come to prefer dictatorship. Decades of unrelenting focus by the “modern” Republican Party on intentional, multi-focal deluding of the public will have achieved its goal. Constitutional democracy will have become, in our century, nothing more than illusion. Its inevitable, intentional demise will only have been hastened, not caused.  

Notwithstanding rightwing claims, impeaching Trump would be about neither policy disagreements nor undoing “election” results, but, rather, about discovering whether or not the American experiment has failed. 

Perhaps it’s best if we don’t find out.   

  
[Image source]

At Long Last, Do They Care?

My next newspaper column:

It’s time for the Republican Party and its members who continue to support Trump to decide if they believe in America. Seriously. That’s the question, right now, as Trump, Barr, and Congressional Republicans are declaring the Constitution of The United States of America inoperative, a meaningless piece of parchment. Is there any Trumpist who can look in the mirror and claim the person smirking back at them would make excuses, were it Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton? 

That venerable document explicitly gives to Congress the authority, the duty, to oversee the Executive Branch. In a country founded by people who fled tyrannical monarchy, this is easily understood; a concept to be defended at all costs, lest we find ourselves back in the Seventeenth Century, with no way home.  

Donald Trump, a duplicitous egoist who’s bullied, cheated, and ignored the law throughout his career and who’s demonstrated not an ounce of patriotism beyond that which enriches him, is, without resistance from his party, claiming he’s above the law. He’s demanding his hired help do the same. And he’s getting away with it.  

The thing about the rule of law is that, alone, it doesn't exist. Citizens need to buy into the concept, see it as worth defending, even if doing so might lessen their personal power. Even if it requires sacrificing part of the present to protect all of the future. If it ever did, the Republican Party no longer accepts that premise. We see now how the system fails if people, particularly our elected officials, don’t respect it. 

When a “president” refuses to comply with constitutionally mandated congressional oversight requests, when his Attorney General unreservedly lies to Congress, while making farcical excuses for Trump’s lawlessness (“It wasn’t obstruction because he considered the investigation unfair”), how will subpoenas or contempt orders issued by Congress be enforced? Absent belief in the most basic American premises, namely separation of powers, and checks and balances; absent willingness to accede to its requirements, it breaks down. Rules become unenforceable. Which is what, precisely, is happening. 

We love seeing him stick it to liberals, say Trumpists. Forget the Constitution! Long as it’s our guy, take the rule of law, the lifeblood of our republic, everything that has, till now, preserved and protected our form of government, and shove it. We. Don’t. Care.  

When the Republican Party was producing decent people, like Dan Evans, Mark Hatfield, Margaret Chase Smith, Barry Goldwater, Everett Dirksen, Dwight Eisenhower, this would have been impossible. Even in recent memory, before whatever got to them got to them, Lapdog Graham considered Trump a “race-baiting, xenophobic bigot; Trump’s now-Chief-of-Staff called him “a horrible human being,” Rick Perry called him “a cancer on conservatism.” What happened? Power, and money, happened. Cowardice happened. Fox "news" happened.  

Trump calls a Constitutionally authorized inquiry into certain of his activities an “attempted coup,” and, predictable as acidifying oceans, his blind followers buy it, repeat the phrase like quoting the Bible. Write outraged letters to the editor. The potential end of democracy doesn’t occur to them. The history of our founding doesn’t, either.  

We’ve known for a while that today’s Republicans have discarded, like used tissues, the idea of fair elections, the importance to democracy of public education and a vigilant, inquisitive press. Have they now decided that, as long as he’s theirs, an unrestrained, autocratic “president” is okay, too? What do they think has, until now, made America great? Are those brilliantly rendered, permanently embedded checks and balances merely empty words, disposable on a whim? 

If you don’t see Trump’s dictatorial stonewalling of Congress as a danger, you neither understand nor accept the essence of America. You’re a false patriot. You reject the very concept of “a nation of laws.” This, of all things, shouldn’t be defined by party allegience.  

Bill Clinton embarrassed himself and his supporters. I found Lindsey Graham’s self-righteous, lip-quivering outrage, back then, phony (where is it now?); but I never thought Congress hadn’t the right to impeach. It’s codified. It deodorizes the stink of corruption. Do Trump supporters love America for its uniquely brilliant and successful constitutional governance, or not? If so, will they vote Trump and his Congressional co-dependents out of office, to restore the Republic? Given Republican Congressional dereliction, they’re our last hope. 

Nope. Not likely. It’d take acts of actual, selfless patriotism, not easy declarations. That ship has sunk.

[Image source]