We have his public explanation, but it's worth considering his underlying motivation
On Wednesday afternoon Mitt Romney announced that he would be voting to convict President Donald Trump in the Senate's impeachment trial.
Romney became the only Republican to join in the Democrats vote to convict Donald Trump for abuses of power and remove him from office—a vote that failed, 48-52, resulting in President Trump's acquittal. The move also immediately inspired mass calls to remove Romney from the senate with #RecallRomney trending across Twitter almost immediately after the announcement was made public. Romney explained his reasoning in a statement on the senate floor, saying of Trump's crimes that "Corrupting an election to keep oneself in office is perhaps the most abusive and destructive violation of one's oath of office that I can imagine." But that only tells us what he wants us to know. There remains a question of his underlying motivation, and there are four basic theories that cover the full gamut of possibilities.
Theory 1: He Did it Because He's Brave
According to this theory, Romney is essentially telling the truth. He believed Trump was guilty, and he was too principled to vote for acquittal for reasons of political expediency. Trump and his fellow Republicans would not be jumping down his throat if he had gone along with the rest of the party, but it would also have given Donald Trump a stronger case to claim that the whole impeachment was a sham. Romney's vote wasn't enough to secure a conviction, but if every Republican had voted in lockstep against conviction, then the whole enterprise would could easily have been written off by Trump and his allies as a witch hunt by the wacky Democrats, and Trump would have leapt immediately to claiming exoneration. Romney basically sacrificed himself for the cause of democracy and justice. This is the theory behind another trending hashtag #MittRomneyIsMyHero.
Theory 2: He Did it Because He's Stupid
Did he really think a nice speech and a surprise vote was going to turn the tides? Trump and his loyalists (i.e. most of the Republican party) have no problem abandoning a former ally and throwing him under the bus. They've turned against John Bolton, Steve Bannon, Jim Mattis, Michael Cohen and countless others from Trump's inner circle. They feel no qualms about declaring a Trump-critic like Romney a traitor—which is why #RomneyIsADemocrat is also trending. But it's not as though the Democrats will actually welcome Romney to their side. They still disagree with him on basically everything. All he managed to do, according to this theory, is to isolate himself and doom his political future.
Theory 3: He Did it Because He's Jealous
Mitt Romney ran for president against Barack Obama in 2012. When he was pressured to release his tax returns he gave in, and it likely contributed to him losing the election. Donald Trump has never given in to any sense of duty, dignity, or decorum, and that's why he was elected president in 2016. Mitt Romney was a vocal critic at the time and has remained a critic because, according to a tweet from Donald Trump Jr., "Mitt Romney is forever bitter that he will never be POTUS."
Mitt Romney is forever bitter that he will never be POTUS. He was too weak to beat the Democrats then so he’s joini… https://t.co/IA9GnnQ2zi— Donald Trump Jr. (@Donald Trump Jr.)1580931158.0
Theory 4: He Did it Because He Can
This is the theory that takes all the other theories into consideration, and adds some more logistics. Romney may be brave, stupid, and jealous, but the major reason he felt free to vote for Trump's removal is that he had no reason not to. Romney serves as Senator for the state of Utah, where the Mormon church and Mormon values still reign. Unlike many other Christian groups in America, the Church of Latter Day Saints has had a hard time getting behind a crass, philandering, biblically illiterate man. In 2016 Utah gave Evan McMullin more than 21% of the vote—the highest proportion a third-party candidate received in any state—largely on the basis of his #NeverTrump campaign. Utah is the one Republican stronghold where that tactic plays reasonably well. On top of that, Romney won't be up for reelection until 2024. He may be playing a long game, hoping that Trump will have lost popularity by then.
Regardless of your opinion, it's worth checking out Romney's statement before jumping on one of these hashtag trends.
His announcement that he will not be voting to allow witnesses in the impeachment trial has lasting implications for the country and the world.
Behold the arbiter of your future.
This is the Senator who has decided that there is no need to call witnesses in the impeachment trial of Donald Trump—a man who used his powers as president in a deliberate attempt to subvert the electoral process with the assistance of a foreign government. Lamar Alexander, a 79-year-old white man from Tennessee, has unilaterally determined that Donald Trump's crimes are not worthy of punishment from the only body with the capacity to hold him accountable. As a result, by the time you read this, Donald Trump will likely have already been acquitted and the impeachment will be over.
Alexander's claim—according to the statement released Thursday night—is that Trump's misdeeds have already been proven, and there's no need for the public spectacle of witnesses attesting to those misdeeds on national TV. He asserts that, while withholding military aide from Ukraine until they publicly announce an investigation into your political opponent may be a bad look, it doesn't rise to the "Constitution's high bar for an impeachable offense." And it is not the Senate's role "to remove the president from office and ban him from this year's ballot simply for actions that are inappropriate."
There is some truth to this statement, but it's a small truth that helps to conceal a much bigger lie. Granted, there are varying legal opinions on what constitutes "high crimes and misdemeanors," and there was essentially zero chance that the Senate's Republican majority was ever going to vote to remove Donald Trump from office. So why bother going through the motions of a legitimate impeachment trial—allowing new evidence and witness testimony? The answer lies in another portion of Alexander's statement: "Our founding documents provide for duly elected presidents who serve with 'the consent of the governed,' not at the pleasure of the United States Congress. Let the people decide." This, despite the fact that more than 70% of Americans wanted the impeachment trial to include witnesses.
And how should the people decide if there are facts and perspectives being deliberately withheld? That has been the explicit goal in Mitch McConnell's handling of the impeachment trial. Presumably, he knows what the Watergate hearings did to Richard Nixon's approval rating. Nixon resigned because the American people were exposed to who he truly was, and they turned against him. If not for those hearings, he would have remained popular. Likewise, according to a recent poll, 65% of Republicans consider Trump's interactions with Ukraine "normal presidential behavior." Consent is not truly consent if it is not informed.
Pew Research Center
So while Lamar Alexander may be convinced that Trump acted inappropriately, without the spectacle of witness testimony, that is not the message many Americans are going to receive. They will hear that Trump has been exonerated. That impeachment was a nothing-burger and a distraction. And they probably won't read John Bolton's damning book. And Lamar Alexander knows that.
On Tuesday, Donald Trump will give his State of the Union address and will have ample opportunity to move the national conversation past his multiple deliberate attempt to interfere with the democratic process and to obstruct the various efforts to expose him—including instructions to "take out" a troublesome diplomat. Normal presidential behavior? He was trying to cheat in the election, and apparently—as long as your political party controls the majority in the senate—that's allowed.
Senator Alexander has cleared the way for the American people to carry on with normal life without truly confronting the corruption that defines Donald Trump's interactions with the world and everyone around him. He has made it increasingly likely that Donald Trump will continue to use the immense powers of the presidency to pursue personal and political ends at the expense of global stability, our democratic institutions, and a sustainable future. Lamar Alexander—along with 50 of his colleagues—will soon have effectively rubber-stamped election rigging.
But in his statement there is no indication that this choice has any significant ramifications. He is willingly obscuring the real stakes, partly out of party loyalty, and partly because his age makes those stakes abstract. He will be dead soon. Maybe not this year or the next, or even twenty years from now, but in comparison to the young membership of the Sunrise Movement—for instance—his thinking is fundamentally and frighteningly short-term.
If Donald Trump wins re-election in November, it will likely be the outcome of various efforts to leave Americans misinformed and disenfranchised and will almost certainly result in the United States fully abdicating our duty to address climate change—the "Chinese hoax"—with the urgent and intensive action it requires. And there will be many people to blame, but few who were as well-positioned to alter this horrific course of events as Senator Lamar Alexander.
So congratulations, sir. In your waning years you managed to ensure that American democracy and a livable climate are on their way out too. Way to go.
They need to put their differences aside if either of them hopes to win
In a recent interview with New York Magazine Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez commented that "in any other country, Joe Biden and I would not be in the same party, but in America we are."
With consistent cries for party unity since before presidential candidates even began announcing their campaigns, it would be tempting to attack Ocasio-Cortez as splitting the party, but she is absolutely right. There is only a unified party to split on paper. America's winner-take-all style of voting forces disparate political interests to share a title and to pool donors—unless they have the ability, like AOC, to source their own funding.
The GOP has used this to their advantage, emphasizing social wedge issues like abortion and immigration to pull working-class white voters away from their economic interests on the left—convincing them to cheer on tax cuts for the ultra-wealthy. For the Democrats, however, the powerful faction of the party that represents professional-class interests—the private-public partnership, means-testing, social-program-cutting wing—has represented a barrier to participation for truly progressive candidates and voters.
That's why it has been heartening, prior to this week, to see Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren avoiding the temptation to attack one another. While many of Bernie's supporters online have adopted toxic attitudes toward anyone other than their preferred candidate, and many Warren supporters have questioned Bernie's feminist bona fides (particularly in light of that toxicity from many "Bernie Bros"), the candidates and their campaigns seemed largely cordial and supportive of one another. It's important, as the marginalized left-wing of the party, to focus on commonalities and mutual aid if there is going to be any hope of overcoming the powerful centrist forces that have ruled the party and served moneyed interests with only moderately less zeal than the Republican party.
Justin Sullivan/Getty Images
That shared effort began to fall apart on Saturday night when Politico ran a story under the headline "Bernie Campaign Slams Warren as Candidate of the Elite." The story included excerpts from a document purported to be circulated within the Sanders campaign, with scripts instructing volunteers how to attack rivals in the Democratic primaries. While criticisms of Joe Biden and Pete Buttigieg are hardly surprising, the attacks on Warren—noting that her supporters are predominantly educated, affluent voters who "who are going to show up and vote Democratic no matter what"—came as a surprise in the context of the candidates' established alliance.
Skepticism in these cases is usually warranted, but the article contained little to suggest that the content was anything less than official and approved by Bernie Sanders himself. By the time Sanders came forward to repudiate the document and deny its official status, the damage was done. The rift was already beginning to widen.
@michelleinbklyn This campaign would NEVER attack supporters. The script, which was not directed by the campaign, p… https://t.co/smcZ6ssrU7— Briahna Joy Gray (@Briahna Joy Gray)1578977594.0
Warren responded that she was "disappointed to hear that Bernie is sending his volunteers out to trash me," and she sent out a fundraising email that asked both for donations and for supporters to share personal stories and perspectives to contradict the framing of her base as elitist. If that had been all, then it might have been easy to move on and return to a mutually supportive stance within a few days. But the real damage was done when people close to Warren, perhaps in an effort to retaliate, spoke to CNN about a private conversation the two had in 2018.
Back then, the thought of actual voters making actual choices seemed distant and abstract, and the candidates sat down to discuss strategies against Trump and to establish the general truce that has held until now. Everyone involved seems to agree on those points, but differing reports emerge when it comes to the topic of gender. As CNN reported, Warren laid out her strengths as a candidate: "She could make a robust argument about the economy and earn broad support from female voters." Bernie was not on the same page.
The Bernie cult has been attacking @ewarren for way too long. They’ve minimized her achievements, called her a copy… https://t.co/9zLobcSgBv— Joshua Manuel Bonet 🏳️🌈 (@Joshua Manuel Bonet 🏳️🌈)1578984471.0
According to anonymous members of Warren's team, Bernie didn't think a woman could win. Bernie shot back with his own version of events, saying, "It is ludicrous to believe that at the same meeting where Elizabeth Warren told me she was going to run for president, I would tell her that a woman couldn't win... What I did say that night was that Donald Trump is a sexist, a racist and a liar who would weaponize whatever he could. Do I believe a woman can win in 2020? Of course! After all, Hillary Clinton beat Donald Trump by 3 million votes in 2016." When Warren herself was finally convinced to weigh in directly, she urged people to move on, claiming that she was more interested in what she and Sanders agree on… But she also confirmed the more inflammatory version of events: "Among the topics that came up was what would happen if Democrats nominated a female candidate. I thought a woman could win; he disagreed."
While there is certainly a conversation to be had about to what extent America remains too sexist to support a female candidate, it seems like a stretch to accept the idea that, in 2018, Bernie would hold such a categorical view against the possibility of a woman being elected president. What makes it particularly questionable is the existence of footage from a C-SPAN appearance three decades earlier, in which Bernie says, "In my view, a woman could be elected president of the United States. The real issue is whose side are you on? Are you on the side of workers and poor people, or are you on the side of big money and the corporations?"
The suggestion that Bernie's views have become more regressive since 1988 seems far-fetched. The inclusive, forward-thinking persona he has consistently presented to the public for 40+ years doesn't line up with this supposed private view. Then again, the idea that Warren would simply lie about Sanders' comments seems equally unlikely. Who you believe seems to depend largely on who you prefer, and the two camps seem to be moving further from each other as the Iowa Caucuses close in. On one side, Bernie Sanders is a sexist; on the other, Elizabeth Warren is a liar.
Without a recording or a transcript of the conversation, it doesn't seem quite justified to land in either of those camps. Without third-party witnesses, the basic facts of who did and who said what can quickly dissolve. The message that was intended and the message that was received crystallize in each person's mind to the point that they become irreconcilable. Perhaps Bernie did think that a progressive man was better poised than a progressive woman to counter Donald Trump's brand of populism in the 2020 election. Maybe his way of saying so was so clumsy that Warren took it as a broad statement about the viability (or lack of viability) of female candidates, and she recounted it as such to people close to her. Short of calling either of them a liar or worse, that is the best I can muster—a version of events that I prefer to believe in order to maintain my respect for both of these candidates.
Supporters from both sides will no doubt find this middle-ground unsatisfactory. The rift feels real right now, and it's starting to seem like each side is trying to undermine the chances of the other. But while only one candidate can win the nomination in the end, their support draws too much from the same pool of voters to allow this rift to remain. Already Bernie supporters who also donated to Warren are turning against her with the hashtag #RefundWarren. But the sad truth is that neither can win in the general election without support from the other's ardent fans. And who really stands to benefit from continued fighting? The center and the far-right. It can only help Joe Biden and Donald Trump. And Donald Trump seems to know it...
Bernie Sander’s volunteers are trashing Elizabeth “Pocahontus” Warren. Everybody knows her campaign is dead and wan… https://t.co/XaRdJ6P3W8— Donald J. Trump (@Donald J. Trump)1578929126.0
If Sanders and Warren can't each count on the other's supporters to get behind them as the primaries shake out, then Biden will likely hold onto his narrow lead. And if one of them does manage to get the nomination with this acrimony still hanging in the air between them, no amount of campaigning for one another is going to muster the sort of passion that we can count on to overwhelm Donald Trump in the general. 2016 should have taught us that much.
This feud needs to end now. Warren and Sanders need each other, and our country needs them. They are the only candidates taking America's economic divide seriously, and the only candidates willing to tackle climate change with the resolve and transformative action it requires. If Donald Trump gets reelected, he will continue to make both of these problems far worse, destroying hope for economic justice and a sustainable future. If Joe Biden is our next president, then we will go back to enacting middling, inadequate reforms—one step forward for every two steps back.
Hillary supporters as 2016 election results came inGetty Images
Warren and Sanders, united, represent our only real hope. Of course, they each believe that they are best suited to the job. They wouldn't be running otherwise. But if either of them is going to win, they need to come together, reaffirm progressive unity with one voice—acknowledging the differing accounts of events and decrying sexist limitations. Either of them can win this election, but neither can do it alone.
And Their Jobs Owe Them Money for It.
Election day is here.
Not the big one that the whole county is obsessed with—that's still a year away. This is the little one in which your voice can actually make a difference.
All across the country, on Tuesday November 5th, local elections and special elections give a voice to the tiny fraction of voters who will actually show up. Historically speaking, these are likely to be aging voters who no longer work or have the luxury to set their own schedules. Historically speaking, young people have allowed the local government to be ruled by this privileged and aberrant minority of voters, even as their interests and agendas have drifted further from the cultural center. Historically speaking, we've thrown our power away—and not just our power, we've been throwing away paid time off work!
This is not like us. Aren't we the generation of entitled slackers who use any excuse to skip work? Is that just a myth created by baby boomers to make us sound way cooler—and therefore more threatening—than we actually are? In almost every state in the US, your boss is legally required to give you time off on election day to go vote! And in most states, that time off is paid!
In New York, any employee scheduled to work on Election Day is allowed three hours paid time off. In California, it's two hours. So why would you give away your labor? Find out where your polling place is, and figure out how long it takes to get there. If it's less than the time you're getting paid for, have you considered walking? If there's one thing better than a lovely Autumn stroll in the afternoon sun, it's getting your boss to pay for it.
What getting paid could look like on TuesdayShutterstock
Along with the countless municipal elections that will otherwise be decided by retirees, there are a number of state-level races worth watching, from the Virginia state legislature elections, which could flip both houses, to the effort to reinstate affirmative action measures in Washington state. In New York, several ballot measures have been getting attention, in particular the issue of ranked-choice voting, which will go into effect in 2021 if the voters choose it tomorrow.
Would you rather that decision be made by people who might not live to see it take effect? Or would you rather you and all your friends get a half-day to go vote? Remember how much you love half-days? So, take one! Spend ten minutes on ballotpedia, then take three hours off work.
Even if you think electoralism is a joke, and you devote your life to activism that will tear down the state and rebuild it from scratch, elections can build enthusiasm and political engagement. If anything, show up and write in "voting is for chumps." Maybe a surprising turnout of young people will get some more people to start the long process of waking up to to political realities. Maybe some candidates will notice the demographics and start shifting their politics to appeal to people like you. It could happen!
Or maybe you'll just get a paid afternoon off, and watch your boss try—and fail—to argue with the law. Win-win.
With all the global significance connected to the 2001 attack on the World Trade Center, many people don't realize that September 11th has a very different set of meanings in Chile.
A memorial depicting Allende's broken glasses in the aftermath of the coup
On that day in 1973, the United States backed a coup that killed Chile's democratic socialist president, Salvador Allende, ushering in the brutal era of Pinochet. Chile has never fully recovered from the violence of that period, nor the sudden shift in economic policy that followed. For many Chileans, it has been hard to imagine a world in which the leadership could work for them, rather than the global elite. But now the streets of Santiago and Valparaiso are being taken over by thousands of protesters who've been unwilling to accept piecemeal concessions from President Sebastian Pinera.
In Chile, a billionaire president pushes austerity while the military represses protesters. Thousands have been arrested. Knowing Chile's history, this is very dangerous.
The solution here and across the world is obvious. Put power where it belongs: with working people. https://t.co/s6J7kOtDXs
— Bernie Sanders (@SenSanders) October 30, 2019
So far many of these protests have been peaceful, but there have been instances of arson and of violent clashes between protesters and security forces. At least 20 have already died, but the activists there are not giving up. They are relentless, and they are only interested in substantive change—a fundamental restructuring of the Chilean Government to serve the working people. They want Pinera to resign, and they are calling for changes to the Chilean constitution.
For Americans, this kind of protest remains out of the question. Protest in America does not exist to be disruptive or to force action. It only serves as a salve for our powerlessness.
American protest is sanctioned by the system and restricted to its proper time and place. It makes the protesters feel better for a time—makes them feel seen, like they're a part of something—and maybe it raises some awareness for a cause or inspires some phone calls to congress. And if it attempts to do more, it is met with swift and violent crackdowns. It does not—cannot—break down the country's normal functions.
But what if the normal functions no longer work for the people? What if the interests that led the United States to back coups against Socialist leaders are also fueling mass propaganda campaigns against grass roots movements at home? What if they're defending those in power from the normal avenues of accountability?
The American media has a tight focus right now on the rapidly developing impeachment proceedings, and that makes sense. There is new information coming out of those efforts on a near daily basis, and there is a significant precedent for this kind of procedure to effect change. But it remains to be seen whether all this new evidence will survive the spin and propaganda from the likes of Fox News and One America News. We should not place our faith purely in the institutions of power to regulate power. To achieve anything for the people, the institutions of power must be afraid of the alternative.
We must look at the mass actions that are making life difficult for the powerful in Chile and Lebanon and Hong Kong, and prepare ourselves to make the same kind of trouble at home. Even if Trump is forced out of office and the Democrats choose a progressive nominee and the 2020 election fully flips control to the Democrats, the fight will only be getting started. The interests and forces that killed Salvador Allende in Chile will still be doing everything in their power to protect the status quo. We must be willing to upend the normal order if we want to produce real change.
This Could Actually Work...
Petition for the Establishment of the Ronald Reagan Super-Presidency
I think every Rational Person can agree that half of this country has lost its damn mind—and I'm not talking about the Good Half! It's time we forced the Elites in this country—again, not the good ones—to pay their fair share! If they really think that we should raise the top marginal tax rate—which affects everyone equally!—they should prove it by putting their unearned billions of dollars to good use.
By establishing the official, fully-funded position of RONALD REAGAN SUPER PRESIDENCY, Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates, George Soros, and Warren Buffett will be demonstrating a commitment to start being patriotic and working to MATA—Make America Truly Amazing. For only a quarter of a billion dollars each, they can create a new Executive Position that would have some Real, Actual Power in this country—unlike the regular presidency that, a lot of people don't realize, was basically RUINED by Obama, and doesn't let you do anything without a bunch of Very Partisan, Very Crooked judges getting in the way.
With that in mind, the following are the enumerated powers and privileges that the Super-President would wield:
1)The Super-Presidency, Super-President and all Derivatives are always Capitalized, and should actually be in ALL-CAPS as often as possible, because He—not to be sexist, but who are we kidding?—deserves our respect.
2)Upon unanimous selection by everyone on Cable News and the Met Gala guest list—who are generally Snooty Jerks, but will make the right call on this one, because it's Important—the Super-President shall be awarded A BILLION DOLLARS, up-front, no questions asked. Not that he needs it. I mean, even being qualified for this kind of position probably means He's already a Billionaire (but there's obviously no need to look too closely into His finances).
3)He will have his own social-media platform that's like Twitter, but with more Free Speech and fewer Haters. It will be called the Super-President's, Listen Up, Time To E-learn Respectfully—or SPLUTTER for short.
4)Everyone on cable news has to say one flattering thing about the Super-President every day, unless they want to be officially CANCELED, and de-platformed from SPLUTTER, or possibly executed—we'll work out the details later.
5)Once a week, He gets to force someone who's been rude to Him to APOLOGIZE or, again, be de-platformed/executed.
6)Once a month he gets a full Military Parade, with real Hollywood military weapons and vehicles like you see in the movies, and a lot of really Handsome Generals straight from central casting. And also a free tour of Universal Studios.
7)Once a year, His official title will be amended to reflect his achievements. Like, say that Billion Dollar bonus gives him the momentum he needs to quickly become the richest man in the world—as long as a Close Associate vouches over the phone and has a different name (though some overlap in the names is no big deal), we won't need to check too closely—then His official title will be lengthened to THE RONALD REAGAN SUPER-PRESIDENT, _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _, THE RICHEST AND THEREFORE SMARTEST MAN IN THE WORLD. And if he wants to replace the part about Reagan with his own name, that's also allowed—it's really just a place-holder.
8)He can have a Second Wife if he wants to, because He's EARNED it—unlike the regular president, who only gets one.
9)Free McDonald's for life, including if he wants to feed like a whole sports team, as long as they aren't Anthem-Kneelers.
10)His own version of the American flag with His name on it, and extra padding for flag-hugs.
11)It's a Lifetime Appointment, so He doesn't need to waste his time on re-elections, and He can never be IMPEACHED OR WITCH-HUNTED OR LYNCHED.
12)Rallies whenever He wants, and also Meetings for very High-Level, Important deals with very Handsome and Important Men, straight out of central casting.
Obviously this is way too much POWER to give to just anyone, so we better talk about the Requirements For Qualification, which are pretty tough, let me tell you, but should be no big deal as long as you're not a loser.
1)He should already be RICH, like really loaded, and not embarrassed to show it off, because that makes Him smart.
2)He should have gone to a really good school, like the Wharton School of Business, and any really established Jesuit School should be fine for undergrad. He also needs to have gotten really good grades, as verified by another call from a Close Associate with a BELIEVABLE name.
3)He has to resign from any Political Office He is currently holding, and can never hold another office, but there's obviously no Shame in it, because this is basically a PROMOTION, and we wouldn't want a politician-type having this much power in the first place—this is a job for a Real Man.
4)He has to pledge to Make America Truly Amazing
5)He should have made his Fortune in something Real and Important, like Real Estate or Branded Marketing.
6)He should definitely be tall, like at least 6'2"—not that we're getting out a tape measure.
7)He should be a truly great golfer, since most DEALS happen out on the links these days. Any plaque that lists Him as a Champion at a prestigious Club/Resort should be proof enough.
8)Must be a Real American, and no I will not explain.
10)He will probably already be very important and respected, as measured by how many times He's been on the cover of TIME magazine—at least 20.
So, please sign here if you want these rich, Lefty Elites to pony up and give someone a REAL chance to fix this country. And if you don't sign, that means you hate America and you hate Trump. Oh, and feel free to nominate anyone you think might Qualify.
It's a cry for help?
Donald Trump once again confused all of Twitter on Tuesday when he ended a Tweet with "Impeach the Pres." After seeming to all-caps brag that "MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME IS AT THE HIGHEST POINT EVER, EVER, EVER!," he claimed there are "MORE PEOPLE WORKING TODAY IN THE USA THAN AT ANY TIME IN HISTORY!" Despite these putative wins for his administration, he did not use the popular hashtag #ImpeachthePres; rather he wrote out the full sentiment, begging the question: What did he mean?
Just out: MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME IS AT THE HIGHEST POINT EVER, EVER, EVER! How about saying it this way, IN THE HI… https://t.co/eeLFQHSr3z— Donald J. Trump (@Donald J. Trump)1571153525.0
1. He's mocking the Left without the literacy to do so effectively
2. It's his unconscious desire to be free
3. He believes Barack Obama is still president
4. He meant "Impeach the Press" but his little thumbs made a typo
5. He means, "I'm Peach, the Pres," perhaps in response to "Orange man bad"
6. He wanted to end with a question mark but ran out of characters
7. Seriously, maybe he just wants to go home
What the campaign against sexual harassment has revealed about past allegations against the Supreme Court justice.
Since 1991, Clarence Thomas has served as a justice of the U.S. Supreme Court with a lifetime term.
Yet shortly before his nomination to the post, Anita Hill testified before a Senate committee that Thomas had sexually harassed her for three years at two different government organizations where they had worked together. Nearly three decades before #MeToo, Hill's testimony was the first major public allegation and investigation into sexual harassment in the workplace. It sparked a divisive discussion about harassment, power, trust and culpability across the country.
After detailing her experiences to the committee, Hill nonetheless watched Thomas win his nomination to the Supreme Court that same year. It was a position where he would have, among other responsibilities, authority over the rights and privileges of women under the Constitution for decades to come.
In February of this year, as part of the mighty wave of women's voices rising against sexual harassment and toppling the men who used it as a tool of power against them, several women brought Clarence Thomas back into the discussion and under the fierce light of the #MeToo movement. With the renewed attention also came calls for impeachment and evidence to support the push.
During the 1991 hearings, it was Anita Hill's word against that of soon-to-be-Justice Thomas.
In 1981, Hill was working for Thomas at the Department of Education when the harassment began. She described to the committee Thomas's attempts to ask her out and the numerous times he talked explicitly about sex acts at work. He later convinced her to move with him to the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission.
The harassment continued at the EEOC. Thomas described to Hill the pornographic videos he watched and disclosed to her his preferences for specific parts of female bodies. In 1983, Hill escaped the harassment by moving to Oklahoma to teach law. Finally, in 1991, she brought her experiences to the attention of a Senate prepared to nominate Thomas to the Supreme Court.
Anita Hill stepped in front of an audience of hundreds of millions and described what she suffered working for Thomas. And Thomas took his Supreme Court seat later that year. "I was disappointed but not surprised," Hill said.
Hill was alone on the stand during the 1991 hearings though others had been willing to testify alongside her.
"Four African-American women, including me, were willing to join professor Hill and testify about Thomas' behavior," wrote Angela Wright-Shannon in February. "We all were denied a voice." Without social media, these testimonies were simply never heard. Wright-Shannon recently described for the Huffington Post her own similar experiences with Thomas: he repeatedly asked her to date him and asked about her breast size.
Another belated testimony came from Lillian McEwen, Thomas's ex-girlfriend. "The Clarence I know was certainly capable not only of doing the things that Anita Hill said he did, but it would be totally consistent with the way he lived his personal life then," she said in an interview in 2010. The #MeToo environment of 2018 has allowed women to come forward together, in force, against the men who harassed them. Jill Abramson believes #MeToo might have allowed others to join Hill on the stand against Thomas and shifted the balance of credibility toward the victims.
After the recent months of accusations, resignations and lettings-go achieved by #MeToo, Thomas's ascension following his hearing and the existence of any subsequent career for him seem ridiculous. How could he have been appointed and how is he still a Justice? Yet, the President of the United States won his election and continues to hold power despite the infamous circumstances of his own history of harassment.
"How do you remove sexual predators from office when all attempts to prevent their ascension in the first place failed?" asks Wright-Shannon. The answer, according to Abramson, is perjury.
Since 1989, three federal judges have been impeached for charges including lying. Among the leaked documents of Hillary Clinton in 2016 was a "Memo on Impeaching Clarence Thomas," written in 2010, that assembles evidence of his perjury. Abramson's article details some of the lies he told, under oath, in front of the Senate Committee and Anita Hill, about the harassment—lies that can now be confirmed as such by the testimony of other victims. The #MeToo movement offers the possibility of strength in numbers that was lacking during the original hearings but that could now present significant corroboration to the perjury claim.
Wright-Shannon, Rose Jourdain and Sukari Hardnett were all victims willing to offer their stories to the Senate committee but didn't get the chance. Now, they and others can fight back.
In the fall of 2016, Moira Smith, an attorney, wrote a Facebook post about the night Clarence Thomas groped her at a dinner party in 1999. He squeezed her butt several times while she was setting the table and asked her to sit next to him. After finally making the incident public on Facebook, it also became the subject of an article in the National Law Journal.
The case for the impeachment of Thomas centers, currently, on his perjury during the 1991 hearings.
But Moira's account of his sexual misconduct at the dinner occurred when he was already a Supreme Court Justice, a detail that could add fuel to the impeachment push.
The current U.S. President secured his victory over the accusations of sexual misconduct by nineteen women, an event that is startlingly similar to Thomas's nomination after Anita Hill's testimony twenty-seven years ago. But since the election, the #MeToo movement has risen up in fury against men guilty of harassing women and has begun to secure justice for the victims. Now, more than ever, the circumstances seem to be prime for the impeachment of a justice guilty of sexual misconduct and perjury.
The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice might be a cliche, but sometimes cliches are true.
You've heard of Clinton and Trump, but did you know Ameruc's relationship with impeachment started all the way back in 1868?
Republicans in Congress face a desperate dilemma. The President, ostensibly their ally, has proven increasingly erratic and hard to control. He acts with minimal regard for the law, lashes out at his Cabinet, and seems determined to tear down everything his predecessor worked so hard to build. The year is 1868, and Congress decides to bring Andrew Johnson to heel with the greatest weapon at their disposal: impeachment.
As the situation in Washington grows more fantastic by the day, modern Americans are understandably becoming more interested in how impeachment works. The mechanics are relatively simple, but what triggers impeachment is much fuzzier. The Constitution empowers Congress to impeach and remove the president for "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors." The first two are pretty clear, but that last clause gives legislators a lot of leeway. By examining the first time Congress used its impeachment powers, we can get a better sense of what conduct might lead to impeachment, along with how the process unfolds.
Protesters call for impeachment
Andrew Johnson became President on April 15, 1865, upon the assassination of Abraham Lincoln. The military governor of Tennessee during the Civil War, Johnson was chosen by Lincoln as his 1864 running mate as a symbol of union, a Southern Democrat joining an administration of Northern Republicans. Johnson had been a firm supporter of the Union through the war, and upon his ascent to the presidency he sought to bring the southern states back into the Union with minimal conditions, in the name of rapid reconciliation.
Congress, meanwhile, along with most of Johnson's inherited cabinet, believed that the war's outcome showed a clear verdict: the Confederacy had been defeated, and with it not only slavery but the whole of the old racial caste system. A new South would be built on the basis of racial egalitarianism, with the federal government taking a strong hand to ensure that freed slaves had access to jobs, land, and the ballot. This was unacceptable to Johnson, who spent the bulk of 1866-7 using every power at his disposal, most notably the veto, to block Congress's plans. He vetoed a bill authorizing the Freedman's Bureau (designed to provide aid and education to former slaves), multiple incarnations of the nation's first civil rights bill, and a host of other proposals. The huge Republican majority in Congress overrode most of these, but the battle lines were clearly drawn.
Congress convenes to discuss the fate of President Johnson
The final straw, from Congress's perspective, was Johnson's decision to fire his Secretary of War, Edwin Stanton. With the South still under military jurisdiction following the war, Stanton had broad powers over how the occupied states were governed. The generals he oversaw as military governors were instructed to protect the rights of freedmen, and troops under his command had put down riots, lynchings, and even attempted coups by the Klan and other white supremacist groups. Johnson saw this as an unlawful assault upon the rights of southern whites, and wished to replace Stanton with someone friendlier to their cause. To prevent precisely this sort of action, Congress had earlier passed the Tenure in Office Act, barring the president from removing any Senate-approved appointee unless the Senate agreed. Johnson fired Stanton anyway, and the House approved articles of impeachment.
The House quickly impeached Johnson along party lines, the trial went to the Senate, and at this point the complicated nature of impeachment became clear. Johnson's lawyers argued that the Tenure Act didn't apply to Stanton, since Lincoln had appointed him and Johnson had only inherited him. Some moderate Republicans worried about the unprecedented nature of a successful impeachment. Still others worried about the line of succession, since Johnson had no Vice President and the man next in line supported such wild causes as labor rights and women's suffrage. With political considerations ruling the day, Johnson was acquitted by a single vote, and remained in office. He didn't last long, as neither the Democrats nor Republicans nominated him for the 1868 election, and he was succeeded by Ulysses Grant.
Johnson's impeachment, far more than that of Bill Clinton, reveals the bizarre nature of the process. While there was a clear legal basis for the impeachment, the underlying cause was obviously political. Johnson was using his powers as President to thwart the express wishes of Congress, arguably in favor of a class of people who had just committed mass treason. He was also, to put it plainly, something of a political embarrassment. Eric Foner describes his speech following the veto of the Freedmen's Bureau as "self-absorbed (in a speech one hour long he referred to himself over 200 times), intolerant of criticism, and out of touch with political reality." (Sound familiar?)
Of course, because impeachment is political, the rules we tend to associate with crimes, trials, and verdicts don't really apply. Andrew Johnson clearly violated a law, and as an accidental president had trouble making the traditional argument that he was the true voice of the people against an overreaching Congress. And still he stayed in office, because the political question was more complicated than simple guilt or innocence. Similarly, no one remotely credible believed that Bill Clinton hadn't lied under oath, but relatively few Senators saw this as being serious enough to warrant removal from office.
Where does that leave things, 150 years almost to the day after Johnson's trial began in the Senate? Clearly, an impeachment of the current president is a non-starter with a Republican majority in Congress. But should the midterm elections go as they're expected to, what then? Would what we already know about this administration suffice to begin the process? Will Robert Mueller survive the threat of dismissal long enough to provide substantive charges? Would the Senate follow through? Here we can consider the third historical example: Richard Nixon, who resigned his office when it became clear he wouldn't have the votes to survive an impeachment. So perhaps there's a way out without the difficulty and uncertainty of impeachment. It simply requires Donald Trump to have the humility and grace of Richard Nixon.
With Trump as president, the term 'impeachment' is always thrown around, but what does it mean?
Discussion of the possible impeachment of President Donald Trump has been following news regarding his administration and business practices for several months. Most recently, a Democratic congressman has announced plans to file articles of impeachment in the House of Representatives. However, not many people truly understand what impeachment means and how it really works. Impeachment is a process laid out in the Constitution as a check on presidential power, but it has only really been put to use twice in all of American history.
First, it's important to note that impeachment does not automatically equal removal from office. When Congress votes to impeach a president, it begins a process that may or may not end in the president being forced to leave. Only two presidents have ever been impeached: Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton. Richard Nixon was never impeached. However, he was the only president to ever resign from office.
First, it's important to note that impeachment does not automatically equal removal from office.
That said, what does impeachment really mean? According to the Constitution, a vote in the House of Representatives is required to formally impeach a president. If the vote passes, then the president has been formally charged. He will then be tried in the Senate to determine whether or not he is guilty. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is constitutionally required to preside over the trial.
The president can be convicted only by a two-thirds majority vote in the Senate. Once that happens, he will be removed from office and banned from ever holding any another elected office in the United States. He can also be held liable and "subject to indictment, trial, judgement, and punishment, according to the law" for his actions that resulted in his removal. After the president is removed, the vice president would be sworn into office in his place, according to the line of succession.
If the president is not convicted, then things essentially return to normal — at least in process. However, there would probably be many political implications for a present who was impeached.
Clinton was impeached, but not convicted or removed from office. After the trial, his administration faced a few hurdles. He struggled with a low approval rating, which gave him much less leverage with Congress. However, it wasn't really devastating to his administration. Many on the left viewed the entire proceeding as a political move. (Clinton's impeachment had come about after a famous stained dress was uncovered, after all.) The vote to impeach passed under the pretense that the president lying about an affair to the public was morally corrupt.
But could President Trump be impeached? He could. All it takes is a vote in the House of Representatives. Still, with Republicans in the majority, it's unlikely a vote would pass. Unless Trump's response to the events in Charlottesville changed a lot of minds on the conservative side. Impeachment might become more of a possibility if Republicans end up losing their majority in Congress.
However, impeachment isn't really taken lightly. There would likely have to be definitive proof of wrongdoing before a vote would even be considered. That said, allegations of colluding with Russia to win an election or using the federal government to increase profits for his businesses are much more serious accusations than lying publicly about an affair. These are uncharted waters and no one really knows what's going to happen.