Nancy Pelosi, in a surprising move, has now indicated that the House of Representatives will indeed hold a floor vote on the impeachment inquiry this Thursday. So far, few details have been released. The big question, however, is not what will be in the motion, but why it is happening now at all.

Up until this point, Pelosi has been staunchly resisting calls to hold such a vote, even from within her own party. She seems to have already weathered much of the storm over the issue, which arose a few weeks back. She insisted that: (1) there was no constitutional requirement for such a vote, (2) the House had previously impeached other officials (but not presidents) without such a vote, and (3) an impeachment inquiry was already underway, making a motion to begin one moot. She stood firm in this position, as she almost always does when she's made her mind up on an important issue.

Her political and legal position was even bolstered at the end of last week, when a federal judge ruled that the House could indeed see all the grand jury evidence that Robert Mueller had collected, as well as an unredacted copy of his report. The judge specified in his ruling that an impeachment inquiry had indeed already begun and there was never any need for the House to hold a floor vote for that to have happened. This was a vote of confidence from the judiciary, which strengthened Pelosi's position in a big way. So why hold such a vote now?

Continue Reading »

Remember when Republicans were the party that stood squarely for law and order? Or for that matter, remember when they used to be the party of fiscal responsibility, chock full of deficit hawks? Yeah, those were the days....

This week it was announced the annual deficit scraped the trillion-dollar ceiling last year -- figures not seen since the depths of the Great Recession. Republicans' reaction to this news? Sounds of crickets chirping. In the same week, Republicans "stormed" a secure facility, illegally carrying in and using their cell phones, in an attempt to intimidate both the committees conducting an impeachment inquiry and the witness scheduled to appear. Republicans also had to twist their pretzel logic a few more turns to explain why their previous go-to response ("There was no quid pro quo") is now, as Richard Nixon would have said, "no longer operative." Meanwhile, President Trump played the victim card once again, saying the constitutionally-sanctioned impeachment process was nothing short of a "lynching," in addition to referring to a clause in the Constitution as "phony." Trump also took the time this week to hold his very own "Mission Accomplished" moment, announcing that Syria was now a wonderful paradise, and that everyone should thank him personally for this splendiferous outcome. Nobel committee, please take note.

Sigh. In other words, it was just another week in Trumpland.

Continue Reading »

Republicans are getting increasingly more desperate to distract everyone's attention from the continuing revelations of President Donald Trump's corruption and abuse of power by the impeachment inquiry. In fact, they've reached the "pound the table" stage, as evidenced by yesterday's rather juvenile stunt which shut down a planned House committee hearing for five hours. For those unfamiliar with the old legal adage, here are two versions of it, the first from Alan Dershowitz: "If the facts are on your side, pound the facts into the table. If the law is on your side, pound the law into the table. If neither the facts nor the law are on your side, pound the table." Earlier, Carl Sandberg went at it from a more defensive angle, but his end result is the same: "If the facts are against you, argue the law. If the law is against you, argue the facts. If the law and the facts are against you, pound the table and yell like Hell." This is precisely where the Republicans now are, since the both the facts and the law are (to put it politely) not on their side. So they're deploying their last-ditch mode, pounding the table and yelling as loudly as possible.

Continue Reading »

Today was one of those days when the inside-the-Beltway punditry drew way too many conclusions from a single poll. So I thought it be a good time to once again provide a little more context to the state of the Democratic presidential race. Because, generally, one outlier poll does not a trend make.

As usual, the polling we see now is really reflective of what was going on last week. What was going on last week in the Democratic race, of course, was the fourth debate. We're just now beginning to see any post-debate movement in the polls, which always lags reality by roughly a week. An event (such as a debate) happens, then it takes a day or so for reactions to really sink in, then polls take another couple of days to run, then the data must be crunched. We've now had time for that to happen, post-debate, but the real trends won't become obvious until at least next week, when we get enough data points from individual polls to show any real sustained movement in the electorate.

The poll that caught the punditry's attention today came from CNN, and it showed Joe Biden with a commanding 15-point lead. Biden was at 34 percent, Warren was way down at 19 percent, and Bernie Sanders pulled in 16 percent. All the other candidates were in single digits.

So has Biden trounced the recent surge from Warren? Well, maybe, but then again maybe not. A poll also released this week (by The Economist/YouGov) put Biden at only 24 percent with Warren close behind at 23 percent (while Bernie scored exactly the same 16 percent). That's only a one-point difference, which is inconsistent with all the storylines being told at the Beltway cocktail parties right now.

Continue Reading »

The Latin phrase quid pro quo simply means "something for something." That's a literal translation, and the concept is much older than even the Roman Empire: I have something you value, you have something I value, so let's exchange the two. Whether it be a chicken, a bolt of cloth, a ferry ride across a river, some gold, or whatever else, the quid pro quo concept goes back even before money existed. You give me something, and I'll give you something, and we'll both walk away satisfied with the deal. It's really not hard to understand at all, because this basic system of bartering is the bedrock of all commerce today.

President Donald Trump, however, seems to have a rather thin grasp on the concept. In his mind, as long as nobody actually says the phrase, then no quid pro quo can ever have happened. This, of course, is not true in the real world. In the real world, deals get made all the time without anyone uttering any Latin. If I go down to the coffee shop and get a donut and a cup of Joe and exchange some legal tender for these things, the only Latin that will be involved is the Annuit Coeptis, the Novus Ordo Seclorum, and the good old E Pluribus Unum engraved on the dollar bills. But a quid pro quo will have taken place nonetheless. Even if I state loudly while passing the money over: "This is not a quid pro quo," it doesn't change the fact that it is indeed a quid pro quo.

Continue Reading »

I read today an excellent article in Salon which took on the utter shallowness of the current frenzy of making Elizabeth Warren admit she's going to have to raise taxes to pay for Medicare For All. This article impressively paints the bigger picture and offers up several soundbites that I wish we had heard from both Warren and Bernie Sanders in last week's debate. Warren and Sanders are the ones defending Medicare For All, but so far they have struggled to do so in a way which directly answers some of the inane criticism not only from the pundits but also from several centrist Democratic presidential candidates as well.

But while the article does a great job addressing the tax issue, there were two other attacks on Medicare For All which were made last week (notably by Pete Buttigieg and Amy Klobuchar) which really demand a much stronger response than either Warren or Sanders gave. The first is the charge that Medicare For All would "kick 160 million Americans off their health insurance," and the second is that "people love the health insurance they have now." Both need knocking down, and while Warren and Sanders have attempted to do so in the first four debates (all of which have spent a large amount of time on the healthcare reform issue), they still need to drive the point home in a way they so far have failed to do.

Continue Reading »

We've reached the stage where Donald Trump and his henchmen are no longer even pretending to care about their lawlessness -- they're just doing it right out in the open for everyone to see, daring their fellow travellers in the Republican Senate to care. Right after Trump's White House chief of staff admitted that there was indeed a quid pro quo in Trump's call to the Ukraine, the White House announced that the upcoming G-7 summit would take place at Trump's own Florida resort. Both are, quite obviously, impeachable offenses. Right out there in the open, for all to see.

Add in to this Trump's pusillanimous behavior towards the strongman who runs Turkey, and his shameful betrayal of our Kurdish allies in Syria, and it's been quite a week all around. The House voted to condemn Trump's Kurdish betrayal by a whopping (and veto-proof) 354-60 majority, which included 129 Republican votes. The measure is being blocked in the Senate, for now, but Majority Leader Mitch McConnell just wrote a scathing article for the Washington Post titled: "Withdrawing From Syria Is A Grave Mistake," so perhaps the measure won't be blocked for much longer. Trump has already lost his own party on this massive blunder, which is easily the biggest foreign policy screwup to date, on his watch. He sent Mike Pence over to attempt some damage control, which resulted in Trump giving the Turks pretty much everything they wanted and asked of them absolutely nothing other than they stop slaughtering the Kurds for five days. This ceasefire has already been breached, less than 24 hours after the shameful deal was struck. Turkey is pushing the United States around, Trump is showing his true weakness, and the rest of the world is watching.

Continue Reading »

As I read the breaking news that Turkey has now agreed to a five-day ceasefire of its invasion into Syria, I couldn't help but think that this is yet another example of what might be called the Trump Doctrine. Unlike other presidential doctrines, however, this one works just as easily on domestic affairs as it does on foreign affairs. It's really nothing short of Trump's modus operandi, writ large.

Here is the Trump Doctrine, in a nutshell:

(1) Unilaterally create a crisis. This can be done through action, through inaction, through a random tweet, through executive orders, through a phone call or letter to a foreign leader, or through any other way, really. Take a stable situation and interject some chaos by: pulling out of an international deal with no alternative deal in place, ordering a sweeping change in U.S. governmental policy with no regard for the consequences, kowtowing to a foreign leader in some way or another, or just being as offensive as possible on Twitter.

Continue Reading »

I have a proposal for a new rule for the Democratic presidential debate moderators, going forward: no repeat questions should be allowed. It's a pretty simple idea, really. The moderators would be barred from asking the candidates questions that have already been asked in previous debates. After all, there are plenty of other subjects that have yet to be talked about, so why should voters be subjected to these re-run debate segments, over and over again?

Continue Reading »

As usual, what follows are my snap reactions to the fourth Democratic presidential debate, held earlier on CNN. But this time I'm opting for a somewhat simpler format. I'm only giving personal reactions to five of the 12 candidates (which does include the three frontrunners). Then I'm going to give some reactions grouped loosely together, under categories such as "good argument / good delivery" or "amusing moments." We'll have to see whether this is a time-saver or not, in the end.

As always, the quotes below were hastily-jotted down and may not be word-for-word accurate, but I think I've accurately captured what was intended. And also as always, I'm writing this before I watch or read anyone else's reactions to tonight's debate. That's enough of a technical intro, so let's just get on with it, shall we?

Continue Reading »