Former GOP Rep. Tom Coleman: Trump, Pence are illegitimate. Impeach them both.

durrati

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Friday June 7, 2019 · 4:25 AM PDTRSS

PUBLISHED TO

• durrati
• Rim Country Gazette Blog
• trending

Former GOP Rep. Tom Coleman, from Missouri, penned a powerful Op-Ed that appeared in The Kansas City Star Wednesday. In it he calls not only for the impeachment of the pretender Trump, but also his chief enabler, V.P. Pence and says their installation in the two top positions in the executive branch was illegitimate.

Kansas City Star

“According to the redacted Mueller report, candidate Donald Trump, along with members of his team, on multiple occasions welcomed Russian interference on his behalf during the 2016 presidential campaign. For example, the report details a meeting between the Trump campaign chairman and a Russian intelligence asset where polling information and campaign strategy were shared.

While Mueller did not find sufficient evidence that Trump or his campaign had violated a criminal statute, the net effect was that the Trump campaign encouraged a foreign adversary to use and misrepresent stolen information on social media platforms to defraud U.S. voters. Because the presidency was won in this way, the president’s election victory brought forth nothing less than an illegitimate presidency…

...Because DOJ regulations put a president above the law while in office, I believe the only viable option available is for the House of Representatives, under Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution, to open its own investigation, hold public hearings and then determine if they should pursue removal of the president through impeachment. There is a trove of evidence in the Mueller report indicating Trump has committed multiple impeachable offenses, including abuse of power and lying to the American public. Both were part of the articles of impeachment brought against President Richard Nixon. This process would allow a full public review of wrongdoing, while providing Americans an opportunity to obtain a better understanding of the consequences to our national security and the lingering threat to our democracy.

If this process leads to impeaching Trump in the House of Representatives and also results in convicting him in the Senate, his illegitimacy would survive through Vice President Mike Pence’s succession to the presidency.

Because the misdeeds were conducted to assure the entire Trump-Pence ticket was elected, both former candidates — Pence as well as Trump — have been disgraced and discredited. To hand the presidency to an illegitimate vice president would be to approve and reward the wrongdoing while the lingering stench of corruption would trail any Pence administration, guaranteeing an untenable presidency. If Trump is impeached, then Pence should not be allowed to become president. The vice president should resign or be impeached as well if for no other reason that he has been the chief enabler for this illegitimate president.”

Coleman is sympathetic to the argument that impeachment might initially be unpopular but insists that political calculations should take a back seat to the well being of the country, as well as basic morality.

And he posits a dire prediction should the House fail to pursue its Constitutional duty:

 “What if House Democrats decide not to embark on impeachment? If that were the case, I believe the public would conclude Democrats are no better than the Republicans who have enabled Trump for the past two years, putting party above country. It could hand Trump a second term. Failure to pursue impeachment is to condone wrongdoing. To condone wrongdoing is to encourage more of it. To encourage wrongdoing is to give up on the rule of law and our democracy. To give up on the rule of law and democracy invites autocracy and eventually dictatorship. History has taught us this outcome. In my lifetime, it has occurred in other places including the Soviet Union and Germany, as well as in Russia and Venezuela today.”

And who can doubt the validity of his argument?

As we’ve recently seen, with the espionage charges leveled against Julian Assange, meant to chill investigative journalism and possibly to prevent his extradition to the U.S. so that he cannot be called to testify to the Trump campaign’s possible complicity in his crimes, and bestowing upon his puppet Attorney General powers to cherry-pick and declassify Intelligence Community info selectively to mimic the methods of the once Devin Nunes controlled House Intelligence Committee, Trump will continue to law break with impunity while further endangering our Republic.

1 of only 3 Dems to confirm William Barr, AZ's Sen. Sinema STILL believes her yes vote was right

Would anything be different?

RSS

PUBLISHED TO

• Maggie's Farm
• Rim Country Gazette Blog
• trending

Yes, she said that, after everything Barr has lied about, misrepresented, obstructed, and ignored.

Arizona’s Senior Senator Kyrsten Sinema joined Joe Manchin (WV) and Doug Jones (AL) as the only three Democrats who voted to confirm William Barr as Attorney General. A former Green Party activist and progressive state legislator who represented a blue district in central Phoenix, Sinema has moved farther to the right with each successful bid for federal office, first three terms in the House and now the Senate.

Some political calculations may make sense, since Arizona as a whole is nowhere near as blue as the district she once represented. Still, she would not have suffered electorally had she said no to William Barr for AG (Arizona is no longer pure red, D’s outnumber R’s in Congress, and the demographics point toward a bluer state). The Senator’s vote is more likely to hurt her among Dems, if the scuttlebutt I hear around town is any indication. That’s even more true for Sen. Sinema’s vote for David Bernhardt as Secretary of the Interior, where again she, Manchin, and New Mexico’s Martin Heinrich were the only Democrats who voted to confirm the former oil industry lobbyist.

If you write the Senator’s office, her form reply says she is “proud to represent the people of Arizona.” Bull, she does not represent Arizonans! Nearly 70 percent of us want public lands protected more, not less. If the Senator did represent her constituents, most of whom value the state’s majestic beauty, she would not have confirmed a millionaire to lead Interior whose career has been spent chewing up land and suing the EPA.

Bernhardt’s been busy in Arizona since his confirmation: his mining pals are planning the nation’s third largest open-pit mine 30 miles from Tucson—an obscene mile-wide pit that will destroy pristine environments and sacred tribal burial grounds. Not far away, near the Mexico border, a new community of 70,000 people, built by one of Bernhardt’s friends, will suck dry the only remaining free-flowing river in the Southwest, a rare habitat for endangered species.

That’s what passes for “advise and consent” in Sen. Sinema’s office: put people in charge who overturn the agency’s mission, put political cunning before moral obligations. Senators Manchin and Jones have said they were reevaluating their vote for AG William Barr, so when we heard that Sen. Sinema had called a meeting with him, I optimistically thought, “Hey, she’s going to read him the riot act for pissing all over the Constitution and making her vote look really bad.”

Silly me.

No, instead she said after meeting with Barr that “she stands by her support of the attorney general. She cited his qualifications, his belief in the mission of the office, and commitment to upholding the law.” Really? What “mission” is she talking about? The mission to keep Donald Trump out of jail? And what “law” is she referring to? Opus Dei maybe? It’s certainly not the U.S. Constitution.

When pressed by a reporter, Sen. Sinema got stern: “I will not hesitate to hold administration officials accountable when they fail to meet their obligations.” I’d like to know what political barometer she’s using to evaluate William Barr, whose tenure has been nothing but a failure “to meet [his] obligations”—unless that obligation is to a lawless President.

Nowhere in Sen. Sinema’s statement does she mention Barr’s initial four-page misrepresentation of the Muller report; Barr’s outrageous press conference that handed the President his “No Collusion, No Obstruction” PR gimmick; Barr’s obstructive non-responses before congressional committees; or his refusal to hand over an unredacted Mueller report to Congress. For starters.

Speaking of the report, maybe Sen. Sinema could tell us what version she read, because she doesn’t say a word about the Big Bright Flashing Neon examples of obstruction listed there, all queued up for Congress to hit out of the park. Nor does she mention Trump’s in-plain-sight current obstruction, carried out in tandem with Barr, including but certainly not limited to the White House’s refusal to turn over any documents and buttface ordering staff, past and present, not to testify or cooperate with Congress in any way. That’s the branch you represent, Senator.

Now, thanks to Trump, who Sen. Sinema does not believe should be impeached, William Barr has full authority to declassify any intelligence documents in his quest to undermine the Mueller investigation and “ratfuck” the 2020 election.

Senator, quit digging, say you were wrong about Barr. The history books will be kinder, and it’s the right thing to do. I surely appreciate her stances on, say, LGBTQ or women’s rights, but there’s a democracy that needs attention.

But he's making it up to us now by spending billions on the military.

DES KELLY ✔ @DesKellyBTS

DES KELLY ✔ @DesKellyBTS

Inspirational speeches by Donald “Winston Churchill” Trump, Pt.1.
“We shall fight them on the beaches. We shall fight them on the landing grounds. When I say ‘we’, I mean you, as I’ve got a doctor’s note. Bone spurs, you see. The greatest bone spurs ever. Etc.”

133

4:48 AM - Jun 5, 2019

A.G. Barr's fireside chat could serve as a postcard for the 'banality of evil'

Mark Sumner

Daily Kos Staff

Wednesday, June 5, 2019 · 6:11 AM PDT

RSS

PUBLISHED TO

• Devil's Tower
• Daily Kos
• Rim Country Gazette Blog

Conveniently scheduled to allow William Barr the last word following the statement from special counsel Robert Mueller, CBS conducted an interview with the attorney general, complete with crackling fire and cozy vest. And in this warm, relaxing setting, Barr calmly and slowly explained how he undermined the Russia investigation and intends to use his unprecedented authority to persecute Trump’s enemies.

When Barr issued his original three-page letter version of the special counsel’s report to Congress, he did so under the pretense that he was only delivering the “bottom line” of Mueller’s findings. But after Mueller reminded him that the actual findings of the investigation did not clear Trump of either obstruction or collusion, Barr had something of a different explanation. That explanation was that he didn’t really summarize Mueller’s work after all—because Mueller was wrong.

In writing his summary, Barr simply substituted his opinion for that of Mueller, saying that “we didn't agree with the legal analysis, a lot of the legal analysis in the report. It did not reflect the views of the department.” Where the term “the department” seems to equal Barr and Rod Rosenstein. Asked about his “bottom line” statement, Barr made it clear that his summary hadn’t been Mueller’s bottom line, but his. “The bottom line was that Bob Mueller identified some episodes,” said Barr. “He did not reach a conclusion.” So Barr simply inserted the conclusion he wanted.

In his earlier appearance, Mueller made it clear that he did reach a conclusion. However, since his reading of department regulations was that he was not allowed to indict Donald Trump, and was not allowed to even say that Trump was guilty, the best he could do was say that he could not find Trump innocent. Barr gave self-contradictory statements about Mueller’s position. Barr claimed that Mueller "could've reached a decision" on obstruction, but then went on to say that “I think the line he's drawing which is he's going to stick with what he said in the report is the proper line for any department official.” 

Throughout the interview, Barr presented Mueller as a sort of junior employee who did a poor job. But that wasn’t the worst of his statements. The worst came when Barr, vest and all, declared that “government interference into a U.S. election is just as dangerous as foreign interference,” and that that’s why he intends to shred the Justice Department.

As Mueller made clear once again this week, Russia conducted a major military operation against the United States, launching a comprehensive effort that included hacking, theft, distribution, planting false stories, spreading propaganda through social media, ad placement, and even Russian boots on American soil—all of it done in an effort to harm Hillary Clinton and help Donald Trump. And, as the public has only recently learned, Russia successfully hacked into actual election operations in Florida, where the results of their operation still are not clear in a state Trump officially won by 1%. On the other hand, the government engaged in court-authorized surveillance in an effort to determine the extent of that interference.

But, says Barr, the government action is at least as bad as that of Russia.

Besides dismissing Mueller as a fumbler who failed to finish his job, applied the wrong standards, and was simply wrong in his legal analysis, Barr spent a good amount of his time planting doubt about the whole investigation and making it clear that he’s entirely with Trump in taking down everyone involved.

Asked about what he had learned, Barr said he had “a lot of questions about what was going on," and that he still has “not gotten answers that are, well, satisfactory.” Instead, says Barr, he has “more questions” than when he started, and “some of the facts that, that I've learned don't hang together with the official explanations of what happened." Those official explanations presumably being the ones that appeared in the Mueller report and, just incidentally, came from Barr’s good buddy Rosenstein.

What did Barr mean when he questioned the official version of how the investigation began? “That's all I really will say,” said the man who just spent a good part of an hour criticizing Mueller for not declaring a conclusion. But, says Barr, “Things are just not jiving."

Oh, there is jiving. And there will be conclusions.

Massive protests fill London's streets with opposition to Donald Trump

Mark Sumner

Daily Kos Staff

Tuesday June 04, 2019 · 6:07 AM PDT

RSS

PUBLISHED TO

• Devil's Tower
• Daily Kos
• Rim Country Gazette Blog

The streets of London filled with hundreds of thousands of marchers, banners waved, a giant balloon was launched, and a robotic version of a MAGA-hat-wearing Donald Trump tweeting while seated on a toilet loomed over Trafalgar Square.

Citizens of a U.K. that has lately been so divided over major issues seemed genuinely united over one thing on Tuesday: their disdain for Trump. They don’t appreciate his attempts to interfere in their elections. They’re angry over the way he has gloated over an issue that’s brought their own government to a halt.

They’re upset that he has claimed that British intelligence was involved in a plot against him. They’re upset that Trump is just so deeply, deeply a jackass who has forever tainted the special relationship between the U.S. and the U.K.

Trump used his state visit on Monday not only to wear the most ridiculous tuxedo outside of a Bugs Bunny cartoon, but to rub his hands over the great trade deal he would make with the U.K. after its current trade relationships have been ripped apart by Brexit. Trump didn’t go into the part where he would then turn around and punish the U.K. for imagined sins with impossibly high tariffs that violated that agreement before it even made it through Congress—as he has just done with Mexico—but at this point, everyone gets it. Whether it’s the environment, or preventing increases in numbers of nuclear weapons, or existing nuclear weapons, or trade, Trump can’t be counted on to follow any deal.

There’s little wonder that China has been slow to come to the table on a deal with Trump. Because it seems clear that signing a treaty means nothing so long as Trump is in the White House. His signature on a trade deal is no more binding that his signature on a contract. Even without membership in the European Union, it seems unlikely that the U. K. will politely queue up to be screwed by Trump.

However, there was one bit of possible legislation that seemed to energize the boisterous crowds in London’s streets. On banner after banner, and in chant after chant, they were energized by … the I-word. America’s greatest ally has a message for U.S. lawmakers: Get busy on impeaching Donald Trump.

An online petition against Trump’s state visit gathered in 1,863,708 signatures, but more importantly, protesters filled the streets, the airwaves, and the op-ed pages. It was enough that Trump, after facing deserted streets along parts of his route, took a helicopter ride rather than face the crowds.

As the woman behind the Baby Trump blimp puts it, making Trump uncomfortable and upset in every possible way is exactly the point. “We know Trump isn’t a joke,” said Anna Vickerstaff. “He is responsible for rampant xenophobia, sexism and transphobia and the creeping rise of far right politics. His climate denial and persistent facilitation of the fossil fuel industry is a death sentence for communities in the global south. But if flying a balloon caricature is what gets under his skin—then that’s exactly what we’re going to do.” Vickerstaff makes it clear that Trump “doesn’t deserve our respect” not just because of his policies toward the U.K., but for the harm he’s done to the U.S. and the world.

The Tuesday protests are set to culminate with a march toward 10 Downing Street, where Trump is set to meet with outgoing Prime Minister Teresa May. That event will likely include Trump once again trying to insert himself into a foreign election and rubbing salt into the wound caused by a difficult negotiation that’s still in progress. And, if everyone is lucky, protesters will drown out every word.

The biggest question generated by the protests in London is … why London? Why not Washington, D.C.? Why isn’t Trump perpetually facing these kind of protests?

Why isn’t the White House continually surrounded by such crowds? Why isn’t Trump staring at his own squalling face on a balloon every time he looks out the window? Why are Americans so complacently sitting back while the remains of democracy are crushed more and more brazenly each week?

Robert Mueller's Seething Message: This Isn't a Hoax, This Is a Crime

Robert Mueller. (photo: Andrew Harrer/Getty Images)

By Barbara McQuade, The Daily Beast

03 June 19
readersupportednews.org

The special counsel is too reserved to say what he really means: Russia attacked America and Trump broke the law.

he comedy team Key and Peele had a running gag in which the always-calm President Barack Obama used an “anger translator” named Luther to interpret Obama’s calm language into appropriate outrage. For example, when Obama’s character would serenely express his wishes for the conduct of foreign allies, Luther would rant about their actions with profanity.

Allow me to do the same for Robert Mueller.

On Wednesday, the special counsel spoke for the first time, using respectful and nuanced language, but his message was clear: “It’s about Russia, stupid!”

The internecine wars between Democrats and Republicans trying to interpret his report must enrage the veteran U.S. Marine. As members of Congress debate whether he should testify at an open or closed hearing, Mueller spoke for the first time—and what he apparently hopes will be the last time—about his report. He seemed determined to avoid further delay and political gamesmanship, suggesting that all he has to say appears in his report. Translation: You don’t need me to testify if you will just read the damn report! 

In his remarks, first and foremost, Mueller sought to emphasize that his investigation and report were about Russia. He started and ended his comments with Russia. Mueller stated that “Russian intelligence officers who were part of the Russian military launched a concerted attack on our political system.” He concluded the press conference by “reiterating the central allegation of our indictments—that there were multiple, systematic efforts to interfere with our elections. That allegation deserves the attention of every American.” In other words, this was a military attack by a hostile foreign adversary. This was not a hoax! We need to take action to prevent it from happening again instead of worrying about whether that conclusion diminishes the legitimacy of Donald Trump’s electoral victory. 

Second, Mueller discussed his obstruction of justice investigation. He explained the importance of investigating obstruction, even when no underlying crime is established: “When a subject of an investigation obstructs that investigation or lies to investigators, it strikes at the core of the government’s effort to find the truth and hold wrongdoers accountable.” Translation: Yes, you can be guilty of obstruction even when no underlying crime is established. Stop saying there can be no cover-up if there was no crime to cover up. 

Mueller also explained that he did not make a prosecutorial decision about obstruction because he believed from the outset that he could not file charges, citing the DOJ opinion that a sitting president cannot be indicted. “Charging the president with a crime was therefore not an option we could consider.”

When Mueller declined to reach a conclusion about obstruction, Attorney General William Barr did it for him, stating that prosecutors make binary decisions: charge or don’t charge. But this is a nonsensical position if you believe, as Mueller did, that you cannot charge a sitting president with a crime. In that scenario, a prosecutor can’t decide to charge.

Instead, the binary choice of a special prosecutor investigating the president is exonerate or don’t exonerate. Mueller demonstrated that he is comfortable exonerating, as he did with regard to conspiracy. It is significant that he declined to do the same with obstruction. As he said at the press conference, “If we had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said that.”

So if no charges were ever possible, what was the point of investigating at all? At the press conference, Mueller explained that while the DOJ opinion prohibits the indictment of a sitting president, it permits the investigation of the chief executive.

And so Mueller did investigate “to preserve evidence while memories are fresh and documents are available.” The reason for this permission is twofold: because other individuals besides the president can be and were charged, and because the “Constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting president of wrongdoing.”

Translation: Obstruction is a big deal. We did not clear the president of obstruction, but we did not think we could charge a president. You know who can? Congress! So we preserved the evidence for Congress to consider impeachment. 

Finally, Mueller thanked the attorneys, FBI agents, analysts and professional staff for their “fair and independent manner.” He referred to them as individuals “of the highest integrity.” In fact, it was out of fairness that Mueller and his team declined to even “potentially accuse somebody of a crime when there can be no resolution of an actual charge.” Translation: This was a fair investigation by honorable people, so knock off all the talk about a coup. 

He ended with, “Thank you.”

What he meant was, “You’re welcome.”

EUGENE ROBINSON: What More Must Trump Do to Get Himself Impeached?

A woman holds a sticker calling for Trump's impeachment. (photo: Justin Sullivan/Getty)

By Eugene Robinson, The Washington Post

1 June 19

readersupportednews.org

 

hat would a president have to do, hypothetically, to get this Congress to impeach him?

Obstruct a Justice Department investigation, perhaps? No, apparently that’s not enough. What about playing footsie with a hostile foreign power? Abusing his office to settle personal grievances? Using instruments of the state, including the justice system, to attack his perceived political opponents? Aligning the nation with murderous foreign dictators while forsaking democracy and human rights?

Violating campaign-finance laws with disguised hush-money payments to alleged paramours? Giving aid and comfort to neo-Nazis and white supremacists? Defying requests and subpoenas from congressional committees charged with oversight?

Refusing to protect our electoral system from malign foreign interference? Cruelly ripping young children away from their asylum-seeking parents? Lying constantly and shamelessly to the American people, to the point where not a single word he says or writes can be believed?

President Trump has done all of this and more. If he doesn’t warrant the opening of an impeachment inquiry, what president ever would?

The message that special counsel Robert S. Mueller III delivered Wednesday was clear. Keeping scrupulously within the bounds of his 448-page report, he took pains to highlight three points: If the evidence had shown that Trump was innocent of obstruction of justice, the report would have said so. Mueller believed, however, that he had no authority to charge Trump with a crime. And “the Constitution requires a process other than the criminal-justice system to formally accuse a sitting president of wrongdoing.”

That process, like it or not, is impeachment. I’ve been back and forth on the wisdom of taking that step, but there’s one question that nags me: If the impeachment clause of the Constitution wasn’t written for a president like Trump, then why is it there?

Let me acknowledge that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s policy of disciplined restraint has been, so far, a political success. With an eye toward the 2020 election, some Democrats can fire up the base with impeachment calls while others — especially House members in districts Trump won — can talk about bread-and-butter issues as if the nation were engaged in a normal policy debate.

Trump’s approval numbers have been falling. I’m not sure about Pelosi’s theory of Trump’s mind-set — that he is trying to bait Democrats into impeachment, knowing he would be acquitted by the GOP-controlled Senate and would then have more credible claims of exoneration and victimization. But I admit that Pelosi (D-Calif.) could be right.

She could be wrong, though. Trump’s going to claim “no collusion, no obstruction” anyway, and he’ll say if Democrats really thought he had committed a crime, they would have the guts to impeach him.

And if there’s one thing everyone should know about Trump by now, it’s that he will remain on the offensive. Mueller seemed to throw him temporarily off his stride — the president responded Wednesday with a limp tweet about how there was “insufficient evidence and therefore, in our Country, a person is innocent.” 

But by Thursday morning, Trump was portraying himself as the victim of the “Greatest Presidential Harassment in history” and blasting Mueller, a rock-ribbed Republican, for an alleged — and imaginary — conflict of interest.

With the help of Attorney General William P. Barr, Trump is going to keep pushing the bogus narrative that the entire investigation of his campaign’s ties to Russia was some kind of “witch hunt” or even an “attempted coup.” Senate committees will give this ridiculous conspiracy theory a measure of official sanction, and the right-wing media machine will trumpet it far and wide.

House committees, meanwhile, are being stonewalled. Trump may ultimately lose court battles over the documents and witnesses he is withholding, but that will take time — and Democrats’ focus, meanwhile, will be on process rather than on the substance of Trump’s misdeeds.

So I don’t think the political calculus is at all clear. The moral calculus is a different story.

In myriad ways — beyond those illuminated by Mueller — Trump has disgraced the office of president and sullied the nation’s honor. He’s not a disrupter; he’s a destroyer who tears institutions down and obliterates hallowed ideals with no interest in replacing them — no interest at all, really, except self-interest.

The Trump era will end someday, and we’ll all have to account for what we did, or failed to do, to fight for our nation’s soul. Mueller gave our elected representatives in Congress a clear road map for holding Trump accountable. Ten years from now, even one year from now, I wonder what we’ll think of those who decided not to take even the first step.