After seeing logs of Rudy Giuliani’s phone calls apparently relating to Ukraine, I had to wonder why it is that a guy like him, having prosecuted mobsters, and Donald Trump, wanting to be one, didn’t use burner phones for their shady calls. Of course, they didn’t expect to get caught. Godfather John Gotti didn’t either, which is why he died in prison, nailed in part by wiretaps that he and his capos should have known had been ordered.
Not that the phone records or the testimony of constitutional experts or all the other evidence will convince Republicans to jettison their party’s ludicrous claims that the impeachment inquiry into Donald Trump is unfair and that many witnesses should have been called who weren’t. This twisted version of what’s actually going on rings more than a little discordantly in the face of months of White House stonewalling on providing documents and failing to honor subpoenas. Even without evidence from those sources, however, something about the size of a container ship is needed to store the facts that have been found. Uncontested facts.
The Republican effort, like all disinformation campaigns, is designed to “annihilate truth,” as Russian activist Garry Kasparov has noted. Confusing matters serves to keep the needle from budging on the percentage of Americans who favor impeachment. As fascists in the previous century learned, one way to spread confusion is to repeat falsehoods often enough that many people come to believe they are true. Obviously, confirmation bias makes some people more willing than others to accept the falsehoods. This is how a large fraction of Americans came to believe the climate crisis is a “hoax.” The word the Republicans have been spreading about the impeachment hearings long before they became official is that the whole process is partisan “sham.” Just one more example of GOP projection.
For decades, the GOP sought to persuade voters that only they truly loved America, wrapping their phony patriotism in the claim that liberals were soft on the Kremlin. Nowadays they and their congressional heirs willingly and aggressively stand foursquare behind a president who has unrepentantly solicited foreign meddling in U.S. elections. This is A-OK by them. So much so that a growing number have flat-out adopted the talking points of what diplomat Fiona Hill testified is a Russian disinformation campaign to pin the 2016 election meddling on Ukraine.
The word for this behavior isn’t sham. It’s shameless.
Dana Milbank at The Washington Post writes—No wonder Jonathan Turley’s dog is mad:
The House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday entered into democracy’s most sacred ritual, that solemn moment when the people’s representatives assemble to hear testimony about Jonathan Turley’s dog.
For reasons not entirely clear, Republicans decided that Turley, the television pundit and George Washington University law professor, would be the best person in the land to make the legal case against impeachment. But at Wednesday’s kick-off hearing, in which three legal scholars argued that President Trump’s actions met the constitutional definition of high crimes and misdemeanors, Turley countered with a case less constitutional than canine.[...]
Back in 1998, arguing for President Bill Clinton’s impeachment, Turley said there was “no objective basis” to claim that the Framers intended a “restrictive definition of ‘high crimes and misdemeanors.’ ” Now Turley argues that the Framers intended a restrictive definition, applying “bribery” only to “money” transactions.
Back in 1998, Turley argued that “impeachment performs the very constitutional function that is sought in a censure.” Now, he instructs lawmakers that “you can’t impeach a president like this.”
E.J. Dionne Jr. at The Washington Post writes—The moral imperative of impeachment:
“This impeachment is not really about facts,” declared Rep. Douglas A. Collins of Georgia, the Trump hard-liner who is the ranking Republican on the committee.
Sorry. It most certainly is about the facts. There are the facts in the House Intelligence Committee’s comprehensive report released Tuesday. And there are the often-embarrassing events visible for all to see during this week’s NATO summit. Collins’s statement makes sense only for those consciously choosing to avoid the facts — or, worse, to put forward lies, as Republicans do when they weaponize Russian dictator Vladimir Putin’s propaganda to claim falsely that Ukraine tried to influence our most recent presidential election.
The most important charge in the Intelligence Committee’s report is this one: that “the President placed his personal political interests above the national interests of the United States.”
Trump’s other offenses flow from this one.
Melanye Price is a professor of political science at Prairie View A&M University in Texas and author, most recently, of The Race Whisperer: Barack Obama and the Political Uses of Race. At The New York Times writes—Why There Won’t Be a Black Woman Running for President. Kamala Harris’s campaign had its flaws, but we can’t let liberal biases go unchecked:
[...] In the end, however, she and other candidates were hamstrung by the same thing that has sheltered Joe Biden and Pete Buttigieg — the structural discrimination that comes from how we define electability. The left’s hyper-focus on beating President Donald J. Trump in 2020 has also resulted in a re-narrowing of who is electable in ways that many assumed had forever changed after 2008.
Thrown about as an identity-neutral term, there is no doubt that, in 2019, electability means white male centrist. In the shadow of America’s first black president, it seems that only white men who take positions that are more conservative than the party’s base can overcome the misogyny and racism of the current president, not women or racial minorities and certainly not a black woman.
It is doubtful whether or not having the support of the African-American community would overcome this. Currently, Pete Buttigieg has tiny black support and he is still seen as a viable candidate. This is the challenge going forward for flawed candidates like Ms. Harris or for that perfect black female candidate people seek — convincing the media and the electorate to reject the tendency to revert to traditional understandings of who can be president. If flawed white male candidates are still “highly electable,” then where is the space for flawed black, white, Latina, Asian or Native ones?
To be clear, this is not just a story of white voters rejecting her candidacy, though they did. It’s also about black voters doing the same. Any time a black politician has to demonstrate her blackness or prove her connections to the black community, she is already in serious trouble. But why were blacks so suspicious? None of it seemed to be enough — not her decision to attend a historically black college, join a black sorority, not even her black father. This I still don’t understand. Nor do I understand her lack of a response to these suspicions that, I suspect, people have expressed throughout her life. She should have been ready, and the fact that she fumbled portended larger problems. [...]
Charles M. Blow at The New York Times writes—What Kamala Harris’s Campaign Teaches Us:
[I]t seems to me that the questions here are bigger than missteps, real or perceived. Every campaign has missteps. It is hard to look at this field of candidates and not remember a cascading list of missteps. And many of them have things in their past for which they have apologized. But one question is why missteps are fatal to some campaigns and not others.
It is fair to ask what role racism and sexism played in her campaign’s demise. These are two “isms” that are permanent, obvious and unavoidable in American society.
It is fair to ask how those features impacted media coverage, or the lack of coverage.
It is fair to ask about the Democratic debate rules and how they prioritize donations in addition to polls, thereby advantaging the opinions of people who can afford to give over those who can’t.
It is fair to ask about the Democrats’ schedule of caucuses and primaries that begin with two states — Iowa and New Hampshire — that are overwhelmingly white, so that candidates who poll best there get the benefit of momentum even before a ballot is cast and also before the contests move to states with more minorities.
Derecka Purnell at The Guardian writes—Many Americans are ready for a black woman president. Just not Kamala Harris:
… [M]any people are ready and excited for a woman of color to be president of the United States. Just not Kamala Harris.
Rejecting her as a presidential candidate does not, and should not ever, permit how she has been treated for being a woman, black, Indian, biracial, and even having a white husband. Nor should we condone the fact that women of color candidates generally struggle to raise money because of political and social exclusion, including the financial strength of their networks.
But progressive people of color rejected the idea that Harris could secure their hearts and votes solely because she is a woman of color. Running for office while at the intersection of many identities is not salvific. The activist generation that “voted for President Obama twice and still got tear gassed” during protests for black freedom felt viscerally the failures of identity politics in the streets, courts, and classrooms.
No amount of “Black girl magic,” “Rooting for everybody black,” or “Trust Black women” hashtags could convince left leaning voters that Senator Harris could relate to the masses of women of color suffering in this country. Quite contrarily, Harris is criticized for expanding their suffering during her time as a prosecutor and a state attorney general.
Calvin Trillin, whose 84th birthday is today, has beenThe Nation’s “Deadline Poet” for nearly 30 years. Here’s his latest offering: Where Billionaires Stand on the Presidency:
First Schultz thought he might, then Steyer jumped in.
Now Bloomberg’s announced. (Though his chances are thin,
He hopes with his dough he won’t need early states.)
No word yet from Bezos or Buffett or Gates.
Jill Filipovic at The Guardian writes—The Ohio abortion bill is a terrifying sign of things to come. This dystopian bill would punish abortion with prison, and even death – and it’s where the United States is heading:
It would almost be funny if it weren’t real: a bill introduced in Ohio that would require doctors to attempt to re-implant ectopic pregnancies – a medical impossibility – or face charges of “abortion murder” (a legal invention).
But it is real. And it’s dystopian – a sign of the disturbing push from the “pro-life” right to treat women’s bodies as incubators, no matter what the physical toll.
The law would criminalize abortion and make it punishable by life in prison; “aggravated abortion murder” would carry the death penalty. That’s right: “pro-life” lawmakers in Ohio want to throw women and girls in jail for life, and even execute them, for ending their pregnancies.
It’s troubling that this even needs to be said, but because legislators in Ohio apparently don’t know: you cannot re-implant an ectopic pregnancy. Ectopic pregnancies are potentially life-threatening complications where a fertilized egg implants itself somewhere outside of the uterus, usually in the fallopian tube.
Alexandra Petri at The Washington Post writes—State legislators, stop being cowards. Mandate state funerals for all spermatozoa:
Pennsylvania’s legislature has pushed a bill mandating death certificates and the offering of funerals for fertilized ova. How inequitable! In Ohio, lawmakers have suggested a bill to rescue fertilized ova that have wound up outside the womb, even when this is literally medically impossible.
But all right-minded citizens must ask the question: Why such concern for these fertilizing spermatozoa, more than others? Those spermatozoa have passed into the beyond after making connections that elude millions of their brethren. Why honor them? Why reward further those who have already achieved a so-called reward?
What of their compatriots who know no such good fortune? Where is their honor? What passing bells for those who perish, uncoupled?
Alex Shepard at The New Republic writes—Tucker Carlson Debuts a New Ukrainegate Defense:
[O]ver the last week, Carlson’s tone has shifted from hand-waving the impeachment hearings to defending the president’s conduct. Two days before Thanksgiving, he asked, “Why do I care what’s going on in the conflict between Ukraine and Russia? And I’m serious—like, why do I care? And why shouldn’t I root for Russia? Which I am.” [...]
Carlson has cast himself as Trump’s most important intellectual enabler—someone who can spin the straw of the president’s often contradictory, almost always incoherent policy positions into gold. His new take on Ukrainegate is an ambitious attempt to do the same thing. Russia must be enabled to take on China, our primary economic rival: If Ukraine is the cost of forging an anti-China alliance, so be it. “What makes Vladimir Putin worse than, I don’t know, a whole long list of American allies?” Carlson asked, listing Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates as examples of brutish countries the United States is in bed with.
So this appears to be the new line of the Trumpian right: Trump was right to throw America’s Ukrainian allies under the bus, as they served no real geopolitical importance anyway. The quid pro quo is immaterial, part of a larger, necessary shift in strategic thinking. The U.S., moreover, does bad stuff all the time in the name of national interest. What difference does it make if the bad thing, this time, is done in the personal interest of the president?
Maresa Strano and Lydia Bean at The Washington Monthly write—How Red States Are Steamrolling Blue Cities:
The Florida Legislature is strongly opposed to gun control. Even in the aftermath of the shooting in Parkland, state legislators opposed strict restrictions on the sale and use of firearms. But there’s another kind of control that they do believe in: the control of gun control.
In 1987, Florida passed a bill that prohibits localities from enacting their own gun ordinances. This was an act of “preemption”—the name for when a higher level of government, like a state, withdraws or limits the authority of a lower level government, like a city or town. [...]
The escalation of state preemption laws is happening everywhere. For the last decade, preemption has spread to all states and across virtually every salient policy area—from environmental and labor protections to immigration and housing rights. The vast majority of preemption bills stem from special interests and industry groups with anti-regulatory agendas.
These laws are extraordinarily damaging to our society. They result in increased racial and gender inequality. They correlate with lower life expectancy. They inhibit citizens from meaningfully engaging in politics. Like gerrymandering and dark money, we should consider preemption to be a serious threat to democracy.
Elizabeth King at In These Times writes—How Supporters of the Green New Deal Are Showing Up for Workers:
Calls for a “just transition” have become central to a robust and revitalized environmental movement in the United States aimed at preventing climate catastrophe. The idea behind a just transition is that, as our economy shifts away from dependence on fossil fuels, the workers in the fossil fuel and related industries should be treated with dignity and respect, and guaranteed good union jobs.
The principle of a just transition was included in the Green New Deal, a resolution put forward by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.). The Green New Deal calls for “a just transition for all communities and workers.” While the Green New Deal has garnered some criticism from Indigenous scholars and the Left, it is the most progressive policy option to garner some support among Democrats in Congress, and is also popular among environmentalists, including progressive youth climate organizers. Demands for a Green New Deal and just transition echoed throughout the U.S. contingent of the latest student climate strike marches, which took place in more than 150 countries with approximately 4 million participants worldwide
But there is still more to be done to build the alliances between the environmental and labor movements. Some unions have expressed skepticism and even outright opposition to the Green New Deal, citing concerns that a just transition will not deliver on promises to workers, leaving them abandoned. But pockets of labor and and climate movements have been joining forces to push a shared agenda and build relationships. Trade union members, including members of Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Local 1 in Chicago, joined student climate strikers for their day of marches in September.
Sarah Jaffe at The Progressive writes—What the U.K. Election Tells Us About Universal Health Care. Across the political spectrum, the British are clear: American-style health care is a terrible idea:
Trump-style politics, and particularly American-style privatized health care, are the bogeymen of this election. The National Health Service, Britain’s universal health care system, is deeply loved across political parties—the rightwing campaign to leave the European Union famously featured buses promising more money for the NHS if the U.K. didn’t have to send money to the European Union.
Even Margaret Thatcher wasn’t able to privatize the NHS, though decades of governments have chipped away at it. Yet leaked documents publicized by the Labour party reveal Trump’s people in conversation with Johnson’s government, demanding “total market access” to the health service. A trade economist warned that U.S.-based tech companies could gain access to NHS patient data. Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn pointed to discussions about lengthening drug patents, which he argued, leads to the much higher drug prices in the U.S. system.
In response, the Conservative Party rushed to issue denials and is now running Google ads promising “The NHS is Not for Sale.” Trump landed in London for a NATO meeting on December 2 and was immediately asked about the NHS; Conservative Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab was grilled on the radio over a 2011 pamphlet he co-wrote that advocated privatization. An election that was supposed to be about Brexit is now, because of Brexit, becoming a referendum on universal public services.