Historians' Statement Endorsing Impeachment of President Trump.

I here reprint the American historians' statement supporting impeachment. It was written and is being circulated by Sean Willentz at Princeton. It currently has some 750 historian signatories. Here is the source. https://medium.com/@historiansonimpeachment/historians-statement-on-the-impeachment-

President Trump’s lawless obstruction of the House of Representatives, which is rightly seeking documents and witness testimony in pursuit of its constitutionally-mandated oversight role, has demonstrated brazen contempt for representative government. So have his attempts to justify that obstruction on the grounds that the executive enjoys absolute immunity, a fictitious doctrine that, if tolerated, would turn the president into an elected monarch above the law.

As Alexander Hamilton wrote in The Federalist, impeachment was designed to deal with “the misconduct of public men” which involves “the abuse or violation of some public trust.” Collectively, the President’s offenses, including his dereliction in protecting the integrity of the 2020 election from Russian disinformation and renewed interference, arouse once again the Framers’ most profound fears that powerful members of government would become, in Hamilton’s words, “the mercenary instruments of foreign corruption.”

It is our considered judgment that if President Trump’s misconduct does not rise to the level of impeachment, then virtually nothing does.

Hamilton understood, as he wrote in 1792, that the republic remained vulnerable to the rise of an unscrupulous demagogue, “unprincipled in private life, desperate in his fortune, bold in his temper, possessed of considerable talents…despotic in his ordinary demeanour.” That demagogue, Hamilton said, could easily enough manage “to mount the hobby horse of popularity — to join in the cry of danger to liberty — to take every opportunity of embarrassing the General Government & bringing it under suspicion — to flatter and fall in with all the non sense of the zealots of the day.” Such a figure, Hamilton wrote, would “throw things into confusion that he may ‘ride the storm and direct the whirlwind.’”

President Trump’s actions committed both before and during the House investigations fit Hamilton’s description and manifest utter and deliberate scorn for the rule of law and “repeated injuries” to constitutional democracy. That disregard continues and it constitutes a clear and present danger to the Constitution. We therefore strongly urge the House of Representatives to impeach the President.

Impeachment Poll Today

An ABC/Washington Post poll, a survey with a strong reputation for accuracy, was released today. It showed 49% in favor of impeachment and removal and 47% opposed. The same poll in July was 37% in favor and 59% against, so there has been movement. In my view, that number will have to go up to at least 60% for conviction in the US Senate to have any real chance of success. We’ll see how effective the televised, open hearings to come are in moving opinion more. There’s no question the Dems need to go ahead with this, given the blatant criminality and betrayal that’s been revealed. Still, I’d say the smart betting money currently would be about 80-20 that Trump isn’t convicted in the Senate.

Court Gives Trump Dictatorial Powers

In this morning's news comes word that the US Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, has ruled that the Trump administration can transfer $2.5 billion from the Defense Department budget to use to build a portion of the border wall they have been pushing. This comes despite Congress's specific and intentional refusal to appropriate funds for this project, despite strong Administration efforts to ram it through, including the longest government shutdown in American history.

Article One, Section One of the US Constitution states:

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

Article One, Section Nine of the US Constitution states:

No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law...

So, all legislative (lawmaking) powers belong to congress. And no money can be spent without a law authorizing it. Yet in this instance the Executive Branch is being allowed to do just that, to spend money without a congressional appropriation. How are we not a dictatorship if the president is allowed to, of his own individual will, usurp a power of congress and spend money for purposes not appropriated by congress? This decision, reached solely on the strength of the Republican-appointed majority on the court, and overturning lower federal court decisions, is an incredible dereliction by the Supreme Court. What need is there of a congress at all if the executive can create laws on his own and assume jurisdiction over its constitutionally designated powers? We still have the trappings of a representative, constitutional republic, but with this decision and precedent, how are we different from a dictatorship?

What to Do About Trump's Open Racism

So now Trump's racism is so obvious and blatant that it can no longer be explained away as something else. Telling nonwhite American citizens, even those born here, to "go back where they came from" is about as obviously racist as it gets. 

Like many, I have felt that over time, bigotry in America has gotten better. The overt segregation that still existed and the common and openly racist, misogynistic and homophobic comments and attitudes I heard in my youth had undeniably subsided. I still think there is less of these attitudes now than then, but not as much less as I thought. 

And Trump has given permission for those holding these views to come back into the open. We have to stand now as always against these tropes and push them back into the sewers where they belong. Otherwise we will devolve back into an openly discriminatory state and society and possibly descend into fascism itself. Many politicians have very little spine to stand for principle when the political winds start to blow in the direction of evil. 

That is why we who believe in the common humanity and equality of all people must do what we can to establish that the majority do not favor exclusion and racism, and that those politicians who foster or enable them will not prosper on Election Day. That's really the only message a lot of them take to heart.

FEC: Why Aren't You Enforcing the Law?

I sent this email to the Federal Elections Commission yesterday. I will let you know if I receive a response.

Dear FEC: 

It was quite refreshing to see reports of FEC Chair Weintraub's tweeted statement inspired by the president's response to George Stephanopolous regarding the president's willingness to receive information from foreign sources. She wrote in part, 

"Let me make something 100% clear to the American public and anyone running for public office: It is illegal for any person to solicit, accept, or receive anything of value from a foreign national in connection with a U.S. election."

The chairperson also made it clear that violators risked facing federal investigation (and presumably federal prosecution) for so doing, and that all such contacts should be reported to the FBI. 

While this is welcome, it stretches credibility to expect her words to be borne out. There were clear and well-publicized incidents of such violations, about which the commission has apparently taken no action. I refer to the meeting at Trump Tower in June, 2016 at which Donald Trump Jr., Jared Kushner and Paul Manafort, among others, met with known Russian nationals for the expressed purpose as shown in Trump Jr.'s emails, of receiving derogatory information about candidate Trump's principal opponent, which was something of value from a foreign source. During the campaign, candidate Trump, at public campaign appearances, openly called upon Russia to release damaging information about his opponent. This was clearly an effort to solicit something of value from a foreign source. During the campaign, candidate Trump, at public campaign appearances, openly called upon Russia to release damaging information about his opponent. This was clearly an effort to solicit something of value from a foreign source.

As a citizen, I would like to know whether the chairwoman's words have any real meaning and whether charges are soon to be forthcoming about these obvious violations of the laws she referred to.

Steve Natoli

San Diego, California

"Beneath a Scarlet Sky" is a Must Read!

I've just finished a book that was such a great read I'm compelled to share it with you. "Beneath a Scarlet Sky" by Mark Sullivan is the can't-put-it-down story of the life of a teenage Italian boy who risked his life resisting the German occupation of his country in World War II. It's been a number one best seller, so get yourself a real or an e-copy and see what the buzz is all about.

Based on the true story of Giuseppi (Pino) Lella, "Scarlet Sky" is a real page turner. Sullivan spent years interviewing Lella, who is still alive, other survivors, and poring through archives to authenticate this breathtaking saga. Lella guides Jews over the Alps to Switzerland and safety, and even becomes the personal driver of a Nazi major general, passing along crucial secrets to the Allied high command.

Replete with narrow escapes, inspiring triumphs and tragic loss, and set within the scope of world-shaking events, in terms of how it affected me this is one of the great books I've ever read. It affirms that one person can make a difference for the good against great odds, and preserves the memory of many who deserve to be remembered, quite a few of whom gave their lives opposing one of the greatest evils the world has ever seen.

While reading the book I thought often about what a tremendous movie it would make. I've checked and found that the movie rights have been acquired by Pascal Pictures, with actor Tom Holland slated to play Pino Lella. I can't wait to see it! But in the meantime, I urge you to read the book. It's one you'll not soon forget.

Mueller Implies Trump Guilty of Obstruction

From the Washington Post:

Standing alone on stage in a room used for press conferences on the Justice Department’s seventh floor, Mueller said that if his office “had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so,” and noted that the Constitution “requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse the president of wrongdoing.”

Mueller noted that his team found “insufficient evidence” to accuse Trump’s campaign of conspiring with Russia to tilt the 2016 election, but emphasized they did not make a similar determination on whether the president obstructed justice.

But if Mueller was trying to suggest Democrats could initiate impeachment proceedings, he also seemed to dash any hopes they might have had of doing so with him as their star witness. The special counsel — who noted he was closing up shop and formally resigning from the Justice Department — said he hoped the news conference would be his last public comments, and if he were compelled to testify before Congress, he would not speak beyond what he wrote in his 448-page report.

For the whole story, click here.

My Take:

Mueller was careful also to say Justice Dept. guidelines do not allow an indictment of a sitting president, and that to make an accusation against someone who could not then defend himself in court would not be fair. He is saying the president is guilty of obstruction of justice, that he cannot be criminally indicted for it while president, and congress can impeach if they want to do something about it. Congress should begin an impeachment inquiry without further delay.

Republican Abortion Bans Give Democrats Major Opening for 2020

Women. They were the biggest factor in allowing Democrats to flip 40 seats and gain control of the House of Representatives in 2018. If the Democrats are to win in 2020, women are the constituency most likely to provide the margin of victory. Republicans lost them by 12 points in 2016 and by nearly 20 in 2018. If that happens again in 2020 Trump won't get re-elected. The run of abortion bans being passed by GOP legislatures might be really popular in Alabama but plays right into our hands in swing states. Read this article showing just how unpopular a total ban on abortions is nationally. 

A successful Democratic campaign must pound women's liberty, in addition to health, education and jobs.

Will Trump Have to Release His Tax Returns?

We are about to find out whether any truth remains in the statement of principle carved into the facade above the entrance to the US Supreme Court Building: EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW. With Democrats now in the majority in the House of Representatives, President Trump is about to be subjected to the kind of scrutiny lacking under the previous Republican-controlled House.

In one such case, moves are underway to get Trump to do something every president has done voluntarily since the days of Nixon: show the American people his tax returns. Section 6301(f)(1) of the tax code is unequivocal in its authority. It states:

"Upon written request from the Chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives...the (Treasury) Secretary shall furnish such committee with any return or return information specified in such request..."

The current Ways and Means Chairman, Congressman Richard Neal of Massachusetts, has sent such a request to IRS through Treasury. It comprises the past six years of Trump's personal taxes, from years 2013 through 2018, and the returns of eight of his companies. Note that there is no uncertainty or ambiguity in the statute. The chairman can request "any" return. The Secretary of the Treasury "shall furnish" the returns or information requested.

That hasn't stopped Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin, a Trump appointee, from refusing to comply. The committee deadline for receiving the documents was April 10. Instead, Mnuchin returned a message to Congressman Neal referring to "serious issues concerning the constitutional scope of Congressional investigative authority, the legitimacy off the asserted legislative purpose, and the constitutional rights of American citizens." In other words, to him, the plain letter of the law is meaningless. The Trump Administration will fight the request, tie things up in the courts, and attempt to run out the clock on transparency until after the 2020 election, the end of Trump's projected second term, or likely in perpetuity if possible.

So, does the clear wording of the law have any meaning, or does the fact one is president nullify any obligation to adhere to it? In the coming months we will get a clear answer to that question, along with a good indication of whether we are still a republic, or are evolving into something else.

Intriguing New Presidential Candidate

Here is a possibility for the new, charismatic face many Democrats have been looking for in the Democratic 2020 presidential field. Pete Buttigieg (pronounced Bootajedge) has surged to the top rank in the polls and trails only Bernie Sanders and Kamala Harris in the amount of money raised through small contributions so far. The South Bend, Ind. mayor appeared on "The Last Word with Lawrence O'Donnell" recently and was, I felt, pretty impressive. This isn't an endorsement; I'm tentatively supporting Sen. Harris, but Mayor Pete merits a look.  Watch the interview linked below if you have some time. It's 15 minutes.

watch

First Take on Mueller Report

So now at least Attorney General William Barr's summary of the Mueller Report is before us. It was far-fetched to think Trump himself actually was on Putin's email list sending instructions to Vladimir's Moscow troll farm. That's the bar Trump set and from which he declares total vindication. I never expected that to be discovered, and I'm sure you didn't either. Numerous other obstruction events took place, though perhaps in Mueller's view not necessarily rising to the level of prosecutable--though not necessarily not, either, according to Barr's summary. He is neither indicted nor exonerated on those, according to Barr's summary of Mueller's report. That's not exactly a ringing endorsement of probity, but it's not immediately getting cuffed, either.

So Trump can declare victory, and of course, he has. Hopefully now the Democratic investigations in the House can proceed with a tinge less breathless publicity, which is just how we and Speaker Nancy Pelosi want it. If they find damning evidence of a character serious enough to impress 20 Republican senators (the number that would need to vote for conviction were Trump to be impeached by the House and tried in the Senate) then all well and good. If not then let the 2020 election proceed on the lines of the issues, and let us get out our base and the moderate suburbanites whom Trump disgusts and the educated folks who are appalled, and women, along with an effective enough appeal to working class whites to get a few of them back (health care, social security, medicare, education, job training, some cultural sensitivity) and win the election on its merits. Trump hasn't actually accomplished much of anything that doesn't primarily help the wealthy and corporations.

If Reagan was the "Teflon President" Trump is the "Houdini President" for his escapes from conduct and predicaments that would have sunk any other politician.

Why Authoritarianism Is On the Rise

Historian Robert Kagan has put his finger on the resurgence of authoritarianism in the US and around the world with a brilliant article, "The Strongmen Strike Back." Kagan's explanation of why we are where we are makes clear that authoritarianism represents the great challenge to the liberal democratic order. By liberal democratic order we mean a society organized along the lines laid out in the Declaration of Independence, where individual rights and citizen participation in governance are the paramount values.

What Kagan points out is that this construct doesn't specifically deal with a range of security impulses common to humans, impulses that are traditionally met by such institutions as tribe, culture and ethnicity, among others.

His argument is the best I've seen. The article is rather lengthy but you will get the gist in the first few pages. After that it rings with tremendous insights throughout. Unless these issues can be addressed human freedom, already in retreat in many quarters of the globe, may face an increasingly uphill fight  in the years ahead.

Dems Unusually United for 2020 Campaign

A very interesting Monmouth poll has come out. Monmouth has a good reputation for accuracy.

Pertinent facts:

1. Democratic voters substantially prefer someone who can beat Trump to someone who shares their ideological perspectives, and by a much larger margin than usual. Dems are apparently united in focusing on beating Trump and more likely to coalesce strongly around the eventual nominee than in the average election year. 

2. Trump is wildly unpopular. He would lose an election today by 19 points. 

Analysis:

The election is still more than 19 months away. Only the ignorant would make firm predictions this far out. Still, the upcoming election is eminently winnable. These indicators are a lot more promising than if Democrats were rock-hard in their insistence to have their ideological mirror be the nominee or else, and if Trump were already ahead by 19 points. 

Certainly, many new events will transpire and we can count on Trump to make use of his full bag of tricks. The Democrats or their nominee's campaign could seriously bungle things. But so could the GOP. For example, Trump's introduction of a budget that slashes Medicare and Social Security plays right into the hands of the Democrats; it's the principal issue they rode to gaining forty seats in the House just four months ago. This is already scheduled to play prominently in their 2020 ads. 

So we'll see what happens, and anything still could. But the terrain is promising at this point. Check out the poll here:

 Dems Prefer Electability in 2020 | Monmouth University Polling Institute

Dems Prefer Electability in 2020 | Monmouth University Polling Institute Some GOP voters want a primary challenge but most would back Trump

House Passes Historic Voting Rights Extension

The Democratic-majority House of Representatives has just passed what would be the greatest extension of voting rights since the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Every Democrat voted for it and every Republican voted against it. The For the People Act will not become law this year, because Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell says he will not even bring it up for a vote in his chamber. What it does show is what the Democrats would do if they win the Senate and Presidency in 2020 and retain their majority in the House. Everything in the bill would make voting easier and redistricting fairer. It includes automatic voter registration, an Election Day holiday for federal workers, paper ballots so that election results can be verified, and would end gerrymandering by establishing nonpartisan redistricting commissions, among many other things. The piece below, including a thorough synopsis of the Bill's provisions, is reprinted from the Daily Kos Voting Rights Roundup.

Daily Kos Elections Voting Rights Roundup The Daily Kos Elections Voting Rights Roundup is written by Stephen Wolf and edited by David Nir. LEADING OFF • Congress: On Friday, House Democrats passed the For the People Act, the most far-reaching voting rights legislation to strengthen democracy since the passage of the Voting Rights Act in 1965. This groundbreaking bill, which was given the symbolically important designation of "HR 1," aims to preserve and expand the right to vote, reform campaign finance laws to deter corruption, and change the way the election system works by banning gerrymandering at the federal level. The bill passed exactly along party lines, demonstrating just how hostile national Republicans are to the idea of protecting the right to vote in free and fair elections. That's why it doesn't stand a chance of becoming law so long as Mitch McConnell is in charge of the Senate, since he has vowed not to even bring it up for a vote. However, the legislation's passage underscores how serious Democrats are about protecting our democratic institutions, and it could become law if Democrats gain control of the Senate and presidency in 2020. As we explained when the bill was introduced, the proposal takes a four-pronged approach to protecting free and fair elections by (1) removing barriers to expand access to voting; (2) securing the integrity of the vote by mandating paper ballots; (3) establishing public financing in House elections to level the playing field; and (4) banning congressional gerrymandering by requiring that every state create a nonpartisan redistricting commission. Below we list each of the bill's major provisions and a few of its smaller but still important requirements, including measures that were included as amendments to the original bill: Automatic voter registration at an array of state agencies Same-day voter registration Online voter registration Allowing 16- and 17-year-olds to pre-register so they'll be on the rolls when they turn 18 Allowing state colleges and universities to serve as registration agencies Banning states from purging eligible voters' registration simply for infrequent voting An Election Day holiday for federal workers Two weeks of in-person early voting, including availability on Sundays and outside of normal business hours Standardized hours within states for opening and closing polling places on Election Day, with exceptions to let cities set longer hours in municipal races Prepaid postage on mail ballots Allowing voters to turn in their mail ballot in person if they choose Requiring states to establish nonpartisan redistricting commissions for congressional redistricting Ending prison gerrymandering by counting prisoners at their last address (rather than where they're incarcerated) for the purposes of redistricting Ending felony disenfranchisement for those on parole, probation, or post-sentence, and requiring such citizens to be supplied with registration forms and informed their voting rights have been restored Expressing support for D.C. statehood (which is the subject of a separate bill) Public financing for House campaigns in the form of matching small donations at a six-for-one rate Expanded campaign finance disclosure requirements to mitigate Citizens United Banning corporations from spending on campaign purposes unless the corporation has established a process for determining the political will of its shareholders Making it a crime to mislead voters with the intention of preventing them from voting One proposal that did not make it into the bill also merits attention even though lawmakers voted it down: lowering the voting age to 16 for federal elections. Though it was rejected by a vote of 305-126, that tally nevertheless means that a majority of Democrats supported this proposal(as did a lone Republican). No state or major city has yet moved to implement this policy locally, but given how much support House Democrats just showed for the idea, it's possible that things could begin to change over the coming years in blue states and cities. Lastly, Democrats are also planning one other key voting rights measure as a separate bill, which would restore a critical part of the Voting Rights Act after the Supreme Court struck it down in 2013. Democrats must first compile a lengthy factual record in support of that bill to help avoid a similar fate before the Supreme Court.

Advice for Teaching Middle School

One of my former COS students just got a job teaching middle school History, the very job I started with at the age of 27 for my first full-time teaching position. He asked if I had any advice, and here is what I sent him.

Ah yes, 7-8 History. I did that for 17 years, starting at age 27 years, 11 months. Is that about the same for you or are you a little younger?  At any rate, I do have some advice for middle school teaching. You have to have standard procedures for everything: how they come into class, leave class, pass out and pass in papers. Remember how I had COS classes pass in their papers in perfect order? If your seating chart is alphabetical it makes it easy to enter grades and easy to pass oars back expeditiously. Every instance of undirected down time is an opportunity for chaos to break out. You have to train them on your procedures. 

When you show videos have worksheets for them to do so they pay attention and don't fool around as much. Your discipline code has to be clearly understood and rigorously enforced. So don't make a rule unless you intend to enforce it. Remember that 29 or 30 out of every class of 32 kids are pretty neat people, but It's the nature of their age that the other 2 or three can make your life miserable. So have a seating chart and let them know you reserve the right to move people if you consider it necessary. Separate the difficult kids away from each other. Starting alphabetically and/or boy-girl are fine. 

I had them clean things up and have their desks straight and didn't dismiss rows until they were all in good shape. That brings peer pressure to bear, which can be your great ally. I would have competitions between classes on passing papers in and out the fastest with Jolly Ranchers (cheap and popular) for the class that had the best time. (Add one second for each paper out of order and one second for each time somebody talks.)

But even with all this rule and discipline stuff, crucial as it is in middle school, let it show that you love teaching and love history, and that though you may be kind of tough you care about them each as individuals and will make every effort to help them as much as you can!

Trump Endangering National Security

President Trump's behavior grows increasingly. The Directors of the FBI and CIA and the Director of National Intelligence testified to congress and all laid out the threats the United States faces. They have electronic intercepts, spy satellites and human agents inside all the adversaries. They have experts fluent in the languages and people who have lived in these places or academically studied them for years analyzing the raw data. Then the President throws all this out and says he thinks something else. Based on what, any facts? Then he also denigrates their work and them as people. National security is at stake here. To me, this by itself is impeachable dereliction of duty. The commander in chief is refusing to fulfill his oath to "preserve, protect and defend the constitution of the United States."

Equality Not the Law of the Land for All Americans

On the day after we celebrated a national holiday commemorating a man who lived and died for the dream of equality, the current Supreme Court today let stand the Administration policy of discriminating against transgender people in the military. I wonder whether the five conservative justices paused to reflect on the irony of this juxtaposition.

Freedom of the Press: Vital to Democracy, and Under Attack Worldwide

The Time Magazine 2018 Person of the Year was awarded to "The Guardians," journalists doggedly working and fighting to report the truth around the world. They do this in the face of the resistance of the corrupt and the oppression of the powerful.

In 2018, 52 journalists were murdered or executed-that we know of. Another 260 were jailed for reporting what those in power did not wish to become public. According to Freedom House, only 13% of the world's people live in countries with a press that is fully free.

Beyond that, autocrats and demagogues are growing more and more adept at using modern media tools for surveillance, spreading disinformation and surreptitious propaganda, blurring the line between fact and fiction, and eroding public trust in the media by calling it unpatriotic or fake news when its reportage does not conform to what those in power would like people to believe.

Destroying the free press has always been high on any would-be dictator's agenda for consolidating absolute power, and the contemporary world is no different. We have watched in recent years as free speech and press principles and practices have been rolled back in country after country. Among these we can include such prominent examples as Russia, Poland, Venezuela, Hungary, the Philippines, India and now even Italy.

The actions of our own president, his flacks and congressional enablers is chilling in this regard. The danger was expressed most eloquently by Sen. John McCain in one of his last editorials, which you can find linked here. Entitled "Mr. President, Stop Attacking the Press," it is worth a read by thoughtful citizens everywhere who value the dream of human freedom anywhere.