It never occurred to me until recently that the Democrats might have a candidate who generates something akin to the blind loyalty of Trump supporters.

Yes, I knew that Bernie supporters were fervent, but I did not fully sense how many in his base follow the mantra of “Bernie or Bust.” My awareness of this increased in recent days, first when my thirty-six-year-old niece said that she had switched from Elizabeth to Bernie because she was so impressed with the energy and commitment of her peers’ support of Bernie. It was not the transitory type that Elizabeth had, but rather more of the “to-the-very-end” type that Bernie has. Later, another relative told me that much of her life was on hold while she was immersed door-knocking for Bernie in her home state of California, which wisely this year moved its primary from June up to Super Tuesday (March 3).

It is hard to imagine Joe Biden generating deep loyalty and, as good as Pete Buttigieg might be, he seems to have a knack for saying things that gratuitously piss other people off. If Amy Klobuchar gets the momentum that she has earned and deserves, then she may too develop followers who will go to the mat for her.

But as things stand now, Bernie is the one Democrat who has something akin to a cult following, one in which it is virtually impossibly to pry away supporters. Does that sound familiar? Well yes, the fact that Donald Trump’s popularity with his base actually increased during the impeachment process shows two clear things: (1) it is virtually impossible to get his base to waver, and (2) these things called facts don’t mean a whole lot, if anything, to his base.

This is where there is a fundamental difference between the Bernie Cult and the Trump Cult. There is a rational foundation to why Bernie has such a strong following. We can see it in two dynamics:

1. 1. Bernie’s policies are based on reason and empathy. Trump’s are based on insecurity and fear. Bernie wants to finish the work on the social and economic safety net for Americans that Teddy Roosevelt began, his cousin Franklin Roosevelt institutionalized, and Lyndon Johnson expanded. But the United States is unlike other industrialized democracies because there are enough Americans who resent the idea of “security for all.” For an excellent explanation why, I suggest reading Nikole Hannah-Jones’ 1619 Project in the New York Times Magazine. In a nutshell, it is that many white Americans do not favor extending equality to people of color and other minorities. It might be helpful to watch a recent guest appearance of Hannah-Jones on the Daily Show with Trevor Noah.

1. Unlike Trump supporters, Bernie supporters will not give their candidate a blank check to do whatever he wants. While Trump is all over the map, Bernie is consistent, perhaps to a fault. What you see is what you get. In fact, what you see is essentially what you’ve seen from him for the past forty years, with the one exception of gun control, where in his early years he [had to] pander to his gun-loving Vermont constituents. Bernie’s supporters’ commitment extends beyond him personally and stretches to the concept of a fair and just society. If he should waver in his commitments, his base would begin to unravel. If Bernie was one percent as corrupt as Trump, he would offend many in his base, and they would likely leave the reservation.

Last Friday evening, Bill Maher said on “Real Time” that Donald Trump had just had his finest week (in terms of popularity). Maher and others are becoming more scared that the dreaded “four more years” might happen.

The conventional wisdom is that the Democratic Party does not have a candidate who can go toe-to-toe with Trump. I don’t believe that. I think that the intensity of Bernie’s base support gives him a far stronger foundation than other Democratic candidates. Should it become likely that he will win the nomination, the fervor of his support could grow exponentially. It will have to, because the nastiness of his opponents will also multiply. While I have my reservations about Bernie (I don’t like being yelled at), I still think that he is our best bet (along with possibly Klobuchar).

Jim Jones, David Koresh, Marshall Applewhite, these are the cult leaders who can scare anyone who has the ability to engage in rational thinking. Trump may not have reached their levels, but he’s scary and unhinged. But perhaps in this unique moment of 2020, we have a leader who has a semi-cult following who wants to truly improve the quality of life for Americans and all global citizens. It’s odd that things have developed this way, but for the time being, we may want to go with our “semi-cult leader,” Bernie.

This post is cross-published on the Political Introverts blog.

The post Will 2020 be a battle between a rational cult (Bernie) and an irrational one (Trump)? appeared first on Occasional Planet.

If you happen to have a very stern father, or know someone else who does, wouldn’t Mitch McConnell telling you “no” about anything be housed in your collection of worst nightmares? Here’s this grizzled, remote, empathy-challenged man undermining your hopes for the future.

Why does McConnell have so much power? Hint: although his persona can be very intimidating, the real reason why he strikes fear in the hearts and minds of Americans is not because of who he is. It is because of the power that has been bestowed upon him as the current majority leader of the Senate, power granted through the rules adopted by all one-hundred members of the U.S. Senate.

Our founding fathers and those who followed them as legislators in the federal government threw caution to the wind when it came to distributing power in a democratic fashion in the U.S. Congress. Why is it that the Senate Majority Leader, one of one hundred, can singularly determine such essential to democracy decisions as:

1. Which bills introduced by other Senators can be brought up for discussion, assigned to committees and voted upon.
2. Who gets to serve on each committee within the Senate?
3. Empower committee chairs to once again determine which bills will be considered, whether or not witnesses will be called, and if so, who will be included and who will be excluded.
4. Determine when the advice and consent process of confirming presidential nominees for vital positions, including Justices of the Supreme Court, will be considered by the Judiciary Committee and the entire Senate (remember Merrick Garland).

Bernie Sanders talks about a revolution of the people, but it’s amazing how much would happen if there was a revolution of ninety-nine Senators other that Mitch McConnell to strip him and other leaders of the entire body and its assigned committees of their currently prescribed powers. There is less democracy in the Senate (and the House) than there is among the populaces of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the Russian Federation, or the Islamic Republic of Iran. Individual senators have less power than their own children in a 5^th grade class or their older children who are privates in the U.S. Army.

Hell, yes to this revolution. But for some reason, it’s not going to happen. Senators and Members of the House are powerless simply because they choose to be. It is almost as if the status quo has a special gravitational pull on them and they are locked into the current positions.

Among the forces that perpetuate the worst elements of our political process are money and mindless tradition. We know that the only real way to wash the insidious role of money in politics is to eliminate private donations and have a system of public financing. When it comes to mindless traditions like the system of seniority in the U.S. House and Senate, the non-empowered Members need to become the voice of the people and amplify their own personal voices in their chambers. It’s not just about the right to talk; it’s about determining the subjects that can be discussed, studied and voted upon.

As the impeachment trial of Donald John Trump begins, it behooves us to notice the loci of power in the process and to think about how things could be different if each individual senator was (a) not intimidated by “leaders,” and (b) was free to operate as the individual that he or she is.

It probably won’t happen this time, but if we as vigilant citizens enhance our awareness and express our concerns to our elected officials, in time, things can take a positive turn towards legislative democracy.

This post is among a series related to Arthur’s just published book, POLITICAL INTROVERTS: How Empathetic Voters Can Help Save American Politics. The content of this piece is related to the “Organization of Legislatures” section of the Chapter 8, Needed Structural Changes. It is simultaneously published in the Political Introverts blog.

The post Some Thoughts on Smashing Impeachment Gridlock appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Last week, Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced that the House of Representatives would launch a formal impeachment inquiry in response to allegations that President Trump pressured Ukraine into investigating Joe Biden’s son in what appears to be an attempt to influence the 2020 election. Whether Hunter Biden’s behavior was ethically dubious is a fair question (it was) or if President Trump’s actions were an abuse of power (they were) is a discussion for a different day. Yesterday according to most whip counts, the House has the votes to impeach the President of the United States and it looks like they will. So, what might come next?

1. The House votes to impeach and Majority Leader McConnell refuses to hold a trial in the senate.
   • As of the writing, there are reportedly 221 members of the House who are prepared to vote for impeachment which is a couple votes more than the majority that the constitution requires. The transcript and the whistleblower report don’t look good for the President. In fact, everything looks very bad and probably worse than the Mueller report because these new documents actually make a value judgement about the President’s behavior. We should not be shocked if the House votes to impeach because this is likely as close to a smoking gun that Congress is going to get. This charge is particularly damaging because we already litigated this issue and we already decided that foreign election interference is bad. It would still be a historic move for the House to vote to impeach the President, it’s only happened once every century, but this kind of corruption is historic. But of course, that’s not the end of the impeachment process, the Senate also plays a role and they are meant to hold a trial. If these were normal times then we’d expect it to happen without question, but after Majority Leader McConnell held the Supreme Court hostage in 2016 then we really have no reason to expect McConnell to respect constitutional norms. Although McConnell has said that he will follow Senate rules if impeachment makes its way to the Senate, trusting Mitch McConnell has never been a well-reasoned decision. It’s easy to imagine McConnell just refusing to hold a trial but it’s unclear if that would actually be beneficial to Republicans. President Trump would not be able to claim he had been acquitted because he literally wouldn’t be, he’d just be in some state of impeachment limbo. Furthermore, impeachment is polling a lot better than it was a few weeks ago and the imagery of Republicans refusing to even acknowledge their constitutional duty probably wouldn’t play well with voters. That doesn’t mean it still won’t happen, McConnell has continued to gamble with the constitution, and he continues to win so maybe he can win again.
2. The House fails to impeach because some moderates change their votes
   • It took around 80 days for the House to decide to launch an impeachment inquiry to actually voting for Impeachment in 1998. If we assume that we’re looking at a similar timeframe for President Trump, then we should expect a vote sometime in December. A lot could happen between now and then and given the chickenshit like nature of some Democrats I don’t have too much confidence in our caucus. I’m especially concerned about the New Democrat Coalition, which is made up of moderates, centrists, and your assorted third-way types. Many of these members come from purple districts and are rightly concerned with their electoral prospects. As a very likely hypothetical, let’s say that by December Elizabeth Warren is leading in the polls in the Democratic primary and is followed by Bernie Sanders while Joe Biden has slipped to a distant third. What is going to go through the minds of members like Sharice Davids of Kansas or Josh Gottheimer of New Jersey or any of the newly elected Orange County Democrats? Many of them have made clear that they’d rather Biden were the nominee. Will they feel like they’ll be able to run as a moderate with a progressive or a leftist at the top of the ticket and vote for impeachment? I think it’s an open question.
3. The House votes to impeach and the Senate acquits the President without Republican defections
   • Maybe the Democrats will impeach the President. It’s been a long time coming and we’ve probably crossed the Rubicon on impeachment. The evidence against the President is pretty damning and the timeline of events shows a pattern of corruption that is hard to ignore. Well actually it may be very easy to ignore if you’re a Republican senator and live in a perpetual state of fear because of your constituents cult like devotion to the President. Donald Trump has an approval rating among Republicans that is probably in the high 80s which means something. The President in the past has successfully rallied his supporters to oust incumbent members of Congress and there are a number of elected officials who if not for Donald Trump would not be in Washington. Also relevant is that the GOP lacks any ideological mooring and seems to exist solely for promoting the interests of corporations, Christians, and caucasians. This has produced some senators who are genuinely from the Republican base and are not rational actors and may actually believe that the President is acting in good faith. Josh Hawley, Marsha Blackburn, and Cindy Hyde-Smith come to mind but there are certainly others. Then of course there are the so-called “profile in courage” Republicans that liberals love. I’m talking about Mitt Romney, Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, and Rob Portman. These are the Republicans who are always “deeply concerned” about the President’s behavior and are “reluctantly” voting for some evil multi-billion-dollar legislation to torture immigrant children. They’ll go on MSNBC, they’ll furrow their brows, and they may even cobble together a joint editorial and send it to the Washington Post. Then they’ll vote not to convict because they are cowards.
4. The House votes to impeach and the Senate acquits the President with several Republican defections
   • We’ve established that the Democrats are going to impeach the President and that Republicans are cowards. However, this time may actually be different because there are a lot of Senators who are still waiting to go on the record and haven’t instinctively jumped to Trump’s defense. Of course sycophants like Josh Hawley have but his senior counterpart Roy Blunt has not. That’s notable because for several reasons. First, Blunt was only narrowly re-elected in 2016 (underperforming Trump by 15.7 points) and likely would’ve lost if not for Trump’s landslide victory in Missouri. Second, Blunt played an integral role during the 2017 inauguration and commenced the ceremony. Finally, Blunt is the number four Republican on the Senate Leadership team. If anyone was going to defend Trump immediately it was going to be Blunt, yet he’s still “waiting and seeing”. If Blunt is a barometer for other Republicans, then maybe we can expect some Republicans to actually vote for impeachment which isn’t to say that Blunt won’t in the end vote to acquit. There are a lot of Republicans who have made clear their distaste for the President and although the votes to remove him from office likely aren’t there (Joe Manchin and Doug Jones are Democrats who might vote to acquit), we may still be looking at as many as a dozen Republican defections. If I had to guess who might vote to impeach, I’d look at retiring senators and Bush Republicans like Lamar Alexander (retiring), Pat Roberts (retiring), Mitt Romney, Ben Sasse, and Lisa Murkowski.
5. The President is impeached and removed from office
   • This is the least likely outcome. I would sooner expect an Andrew Yang nomination than a Trump conviction. But it could happen, we may still be missing a piece of the puzzle. Donald Rumsfeld famously said “there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns—the ones we don’t know we don’t know”. There is almost certainly an unknown unknown out there and it could be one that is so repugnant and disturbing to the conscious of the nation that Republicans will literally have no choice but to impeach. I was tempted to lay out an addendum to this scenario because perhaps the Republicans could convince the President to resign in a similar fashion to what happened to Nixon. But we know Donald Trump and we know in our heart of hearts that he is not going to resign. Unlike other politicians who can be compelled to act by fear or shame or threat to their future in the party, Trump exists outside of conventional norms and he knows it. Trump has captured the racist zeitgeist and will have millions of followers no matter what happens next and that’s enough for him. The only way the President is leaving the White House is through impeachment or at the end of his term, whether that’s 2021 or 2025. There may come a point when Republicans begin to ask themselves, “Is this worth it? Could we achieve the same ends with Mike Pence?” and then the President will be in trouble.

There’s also a number of wild card scenarios that we should be prepared for because the moment we’re in is very fluid and it’s hard to predict anything anymore.

1. Clarence Thomas resigns or some other Supreme Court Vacancy
   • It’s probably time we stopped pretending that the Supreme Court isn’t partisan. It is. We don’t select justices based on merit, we select them based on reading their rulings, so we understand their judicial philosophy and ideology. There’s a reason that liberal and conservative groups create lists of preferred nominees, it’s because they know where they stand on the issues. The Supreme Court is a broken institution and it can be manipulated for partisan purposes. Enter Clarence Thomas, who has a very conservative world view and witnessed first-hand the kind of mobilizing force a Supreme Court vacancy can have on an election (see 2016 and to a lesser extent 2018). Clarence Thomas has served on the Court for nearly 30 years and hasn’t exactly hidden his conservative leanings, his wife Virginia worked for the Heritage foundation and currently contributes to Tucker Carlson’s Daily Caller. He may just decide to announce his resignation at the end of the 2020 SCOTUS term and that would probably be enough for Republicans to circle the horses around President Trump. If the worst should happen, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg or Stephen Breyer (or both) should die, then we’d be faced with a more significant realignment of the Supreme Court that actually would likely mean the realization of many conservative goals like outlawing abortion and same-sex marriage. That would almost certainly mean either impeachment would be completely abandoned by Democrats or Republicans would engage in some historically ugly campaigning.
2. President Trump Resigns from Office and then continues to run for re-election

• • Donald Trump did not win the Republican nomination because he had institutional support from the party. He won in spite of it because he was what Republican voters wanted, an anti-establishment figure who was willing to be unorthodox and dress down an elite that they loathe. If he needed to, he could probably do it again and if impeachment looks likely then that’d probably be a viable path forward. Would Mike Pence be willing to lead a caretaker government while Trump campaigned for President? He might have to because his choices are pretty limited. Would Pence defeat Trump in a Republican primary? Doubtful because even with the unlimited resources of the RNC, Trump is still Trump (ask Jeb how far $140 million will get you). Does Pence want a future in Republican politics? Probably, and he’s tied his fortunes to Trump and needs to stay in his good graces and for Trump to remain popular. That’s the thing about Faustian bargains, the Devil always gets the better end of the deal. Trump may well reason that he’d have a better chance of staying in power by giving it up. Trump appreciates a good story and the populist president who promised change is stymied by the Washington Establishment and is running an insurgent campaign on behalf of the people…that’s pretty good.

I don’t know what’s going to happen next, but we shouldn’t be surprised if it’s something we don’t expect. I wouldn’t hold my breath for the more outlandish scenarios that involve “President Pelosi” or “Hillary Clinton 3.0” but there’s a lot that could happen in the coming days and weeks. The President probably abused his office and attempted to have a foreign power influence our elections. That’s serious not just for President Trump but for our democracy. It’s time to see the full extent of the Article One powers in the Constitution.

The post 7 Paths Forward for Impeachment appeared first on Occasional Planet.

John F. Kennedy’s Pulitzer Prize winning book (with much help from speechwriter Ted Sorensen) , Profiles in Courage, focused on eight white men (yes, no women and no minorities) who stood up for principle at the expense of continuing their political careers. With one exception (James Comey), there seems to be no one who has served the administration of Donald Trump who would remotely qualify as a profile in courage.

Even before Trump was anointed president by the antiquated and anachronistic Electoral College, F.B.I. Director James Comey took unpopular stands in defense of what he thought was right. It was within the jurisdiction of his agency to investigate Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s unconventional method of storing e-mails. Comey was caught between the proverbial rock and the hard place. One option was to stay silent and let Attorney-General Loretta Lynch announce that no indictment would be forthcoming. However, Comey knew that Lynch’s credibility was tainted. She had recently hosted a 30-minute private meeting with Bill Clinton on her plane at the Phoenix airport. With Lynch compromised, Comey took option two, stepping up to say that while there was not sufficient evidence to indict Clinton, her conduct had been “extremely careless.”

He irritated the Clintons and many of their supporters, but his honesty shined through when he recognized that he was in a conundrum and he spoke openly about not having any simple answers.

When Donald Trump became president, Comey utilized the same balanced thinking that made him such a straight shooter with Clinton. If Comey had not previously been aware of Trump’s emotional and mental inadequacies to be president, he learned quickly upon having private meetings in the White House. Donald Trump clearly did not understand the role of the F.B.I., of the Department of Justice, and how the White House related to both. More importantly, Trump gave no indication that his top priority was the well-being of the United States and the world in which we live. Rather it was his personal aggrandizement.

Once Comey met Trump, his primary concern was the well-being of the country. He had the audacity to take contemporaneous notes from his meetings with Trump. Ultimately, he shared them with a friend, who at Comey’s request, leaked to the media. Comey wanted American citizens to know about the dangers that lurked while Donald Trump was president. With this knowledge, he wanted Congress, and possibly the president’s cabinet, to consider legal actions to reduce or eliminate the threat that he presented.

In contrast to Comey, there is a man named Mad Dog. You may know him as former Secretary of Defense James Mattis. He was one of Trump’s original cabinet appointees and by all regards, acquitted himself well at the Pentagon. But by the end of his second year as Secretary, he resigned, saying that he objected to Trump’s precipitous withdrawal of American troops from Syria.

His departure from the Cabinet was very disturbing to those Americans who had serious concerns about Trump. Mattis was considered to be one of the adults in the room. Presumably he could talk truth to power, and if necessary, implement, or not implement, Trump orders in a way that minimized danger to the country.

Once Mattis left the Cabinet, and Trump’s position of Chief of Staff was filled with Trump worshipers, a huge vacuum was evident. There was no one in the higher reaches of government who could straight-talk Trump, and if necessary, leave the administration on principle.

Now we learn that General Mattis has written a book which includes accounts of his service in the Trump Administration. Unfortunately, he fails to include in the book or in any of his recent magazine articles and on-air interviews that Donald Trump was putting America further at risk.

Perhaps Mattis was not the adult in the room who we thought that he was. Perhaps his comfort zone is adhering to military protocol and following the line of his commander-in-chief.

To many “adults outside the room,” it is very disappointing that Mattis has not offered legitimate criticism of Trump. Instead, he is going on to be a lobbyist.

There are many on the left who hold a grudge against James Comey because his actions clearly hurt Hillary Clinton’s chances of becoming president. This may be true, but he stood alone among those who have “served” Donald Trump, because he publicly talked truth to power. Had he not, we probably would not have had a Robert Mueller and all the misdeeds revealed in his investigation. If only Mattis had been a little more like Comey.

The post A Tale of Two Jameses appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Words like cowardly have been used to describe the person who wrote the anonymous op-ed to the New York Times. But think about it. If Anonymous had revealed his/her identity, he/she would no longer be in the White House. Any person of sound mind is far more valuable to us on the inside of the White House than on the outside. Furthermore, the presence of Anonymous in the White House serves to further reveal how vindictive and unfocused Donald Trump is.

The nation is awakening to the danger. Even Barack Obama chose to enter the political fray because he sees that we have ranged far outside of normalcy in the White House. His patience may have been a virtue for a while, but it all too evident now that all hands must be on-board to address the issues inside the White House – ones that far too many Republicans on the outside are enabling by inaction.

Criticizing the New York Times is like faulting the person who sounds a fire alarm when the building is really on fire. The Times obviously did the necessary vetting of Anonymous and because of their willingness to break a rule that needed to be broken, we all have a better idea of what is going on behind closed doors at 1600.

It took over thirty years for the world to learn that former FBI agent Mark Felts was Deep Throat of Watergate fame. The case of possible suspects in the White House, or in the broader Trump administration, is much smaller. Anonymous will either be identified or will step forward before too long.

Once that happens, the focus will partially turn away from the transgressions of Trump to the character of Anonymous. It’s a sure bet that Trump will be joined by many other Republicans in lambasting this person. By taking his or her persona out of the equation, at least for a while, Anonymous has done us a great service. We must all seize the moment take the necessary steps to either minimize the damage that Trump does or remove him from office in a constitutional fashion.

The post Disheartening to hear criticism of NY Times and Anonymous appeared first on Occasional Planet.

In unison, the talking heads at Fox News and Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee assaulted both current FBI Director Christopher Wray and former Director Robert Mueller. Mueller also happens to be Special Counsel investigating foreign election intervention by Russia. Their complaint was that the F.B.I. is politicized and out to get Donald Trump. In the minds of those on the right, the same is true of Special Counsel Mueller.

Fox anchor and commentator Gregg Jarrett said,

“I think that we now know that the Mueller Investigation is illegitimate and corrupt. And Mueller has been using the F.B.I. as a political weapon, and the F.B.I. has become America’s secret police, secret surveillance, wire-tapping, intimidation, harassment and threats. It’s like the old KGB that comes for you in the dark of the night, banging through your door. The F.B.I. is a shadow government now; it has become highly politicized.”

Peter Strzok is the perfect example of it. He led both the Hillary Clinton investigation and, until recently, the Mueller investigation. This is a guy who has corrupt political motives. We now know it. Congress has the emails. But he’s the tip of the iceberg.

Rarely has a public figure received as much universal praise as Robert Mueller, at least up until a few weeks ago. But as his investigation has evolved to the point where we now have perp walks, the heat is getting to be too much for many on the right. In their minds, Mueller and those working for him no longer have objectivity; their clear and present motive is to get Donald Trump and those close to him.

If you believe that we are now living in two un-parallel universes, the right is right. Mueller is out to get Trump and those close to him. At least this is how most people in Trump’s 34% universe of the American electorate see it.

Here’s the problem that the right has. Mueller is coming from a perspective founded in the Age of Reason. He is employing logic and deductive reasoning. He is hiring people who come from the same school. When the Trump-o-philes complain that Mueller has hired lawyers who have represented Democrats or contributed to the campaign of Democrats, they are right. What do they expect, lawyers from Breitbart? Mueller is hiring lawyers who can follow both the facts and the law.

Mueller is an evidence-based person. This comes with the territory when you are a post-J-Edgar director of the F.B.I. Or as Sergeant Joe Friday of Dragnet fame said, “Just the facts, ma’am.” He is following what is empirical, and often times this means following the money. For Trump, this means getting into his “privates.” His allies think that’s off-limits, but in reality, his finances should be in the public domain.

These two universes go beyond disagreeing on policies or even on proper legal procedure. They reflect a huge cultural divide in our country. It has gotten so wide that each side goes beyond calling the other side “bad” or misguided; now each side challenges the mental health of those on the other side.

Conventional analysis would indicate that Trump or Roy Moore are people whose mental stability should be questioned, but to those on the right it is the likes of Mueller or Barack Obama who are unstable.

There is a connection between rational thinking and those who are politically more to the left. Mueller’s investigation is reflective of that; the best investigators tend to be closer to non-conspiratorial journalists and others looking to document occurrences. This has to be frightening to Trump, Fox News and others of similar mind-sets. From where they sit, it is indeed true that Mueller is stacking the deck against Trump. It will be that way so long as two plus two equals four.

The post The right is right: Mueller is stacking deck against Trump appeared first on Occasional Planet.

It’s risky, but impeachment definitely has to be on the table. If you have been watching television lately, you have probably seen a video by Tom Steyer making a case for impeachment.

However, we have to be cautious. The very reason why Trump should be removed from office is the same reason why no attempt should be made. As we have previously stated, trying to assess him by his “beliefs” or positions on issues is irrelevant, because he is a psychologically damaged individual and the nature of his illness(es) is what drives his actions. The word “unhinged” has frequently been used, and with the exception of Richard Nixon in his final days, we have never had a situation quite like this.

Trump is far too erratic to be a legitimate leader of our country. But because he is unhinged, we are taking a trip into the unknown if a serious attempt is made to remove him from office. Legally, he has his finger on the button; he can be the one to launch American nuclear missiles. Practically, we are not sure whether there are military or other security personnel in the government who have taken steps to prevent Trump from acting unilaterally, even if he thinks that he can. Just think about what you would do if you were in the government and you had an opportunity to “disarm” Trump. Would you take steps of dubious constitutionality to save the country or the world? Not an easy question to answer.

Maggie Haberman of the New York Times stated this morning on CNN’s New Day that Trump’s disconnect has been markedly accelerated in recent days and weeks. His retweeting this morning of far-right, Anti-Muslim videos seems to be more gratuitously nasty and distorted than anything he has done to date.

Republicans are not going to take the lead on impeachment. They should, because in a sense, they own him. To paraphrase Colin Powell about the Pottery Barn policy, “if you break it you own it.” But most Republicans are too partisan to act boldly, and perhaps more importantly, they are often poor readers of reality; e.g. when a tax bill would take way health coverage from thirteen million or more Americans, they don’t seem to see the pain. People who can’t see pain are not really equipped to assess the damage done by Trump.

The downside to Democrats taking the lead on impeachment is that it would appear to be partisan. In part, it would be. But is it possible for something partisan to also be good policy? The answer is clearly yes, witness virtually everything that Democrats were able to do in the New Deal and the Great Society. More recently, the establishment of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau by Democrats.

On the partisan scale, it would be important for Democrats to get ahead of the curve and make it even more clear that they have had little or nothing to do with the damage that Trump has done, and likely will continue to do to the country. If Democrats do not act, there will be a certain hollowness to their future pleas that they did everything that they could to spare the nation from the wrath of Trump.

But more important than any political benefits to Democrats, the issue of Trump being unhinged begs for our attention. As Maggie Haberman said, it is only getting worse.

If a genuine effort was made to impeach Donald Trump, there are at least two areas of risk. The first can be summed up in two words: Mike Pence. The second is the question of what Trump would do while the process is taking place.

My suggestion would be for the Democrats to take the lead on a move for impeachment, but to recognize that they might have to back off if the Trump situation gets too volatile. Theoretically, if Trump’s behavior becomes even more outrageous, it might prompt discussion between Pence and members of the Cabinet on invoking the 25^th Amendment to temporarily remove Trump from office. Finally, there is the wording in Section 4 of the 25^th Amendment which allows Congress to take quick action for temporary removal.

This is all tricky. We need to say things publicly that might best be said behind Trump’s back. But that is not an option. We may need to follow the old adage, “Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of their country.” Of course, like Trump, the adage needs to include women.

Postscript: Interview with Psychiatrist Lance Dodes re. mental status of Donald Trump

The post Impeachment might make sense where very little else does appeared first on Occasional Planet.