Impeachment: An “election” issue or a Job Duty of Elected Officials?

The Mueller Report, in all its redacted glory, released on Thursday, has opened the “impeachment” debate once again.

When voters choose their elected representatives, for a 2-or 6-year term, we do it with the expectation they will go to Washington, D.C., take an oath of office to uphold the Constitution and then do that job REPRESENTING us in Washington.

If this is no longer the manner in which our representatives are wiling to do their duties delegated under the U.S. Constitution, either do not run for office, or let’s amend the Constitution to require national referendums on 1) Impeachment and 2) Supreme Court Justices EVERY TIME, rather than “wait” for an election months, or years, down the road for the “voters to decide.” If Congress wishes to abdicate its Constitutional duties to voters, then let’s make it official! Let’s make it a required vote by everyone – but let’s not wait until the subject of impeachment is able to denigrate the office he or she holds as much as possible before we do so. They do this in other countries. We could do this here, if we wanted to.

There is a significant divide (shocking!) between those who want the impeachment process to begin, those who counsel caution and patience (for what, I’m not sure) and those who remain silently complicit.

There are a number of arguments against Impeachment. Let’s look at some of the most prevalent ones:

1. The Time Honored “Slippery Slope” Argument: A History Lesson on the reality of that Slope.

This is an argument I have encountered since Trump took office. It’s a nuclear option. If we use it for this, what else will future Congresses use it for? I hate to break it to people: That ship has sailed. A LONG time ago.

Click here for a history of impeachments of federal officials, including federal judges in 2009 and 2010. Didn’t know that happened, did you? Me either. A review of this list shows 11 times out of 19 that impeachment resulted in resignation or removal from office. A review of history shows that partisan politics played a role in a number of these impeachments, and it could be said, none of the “high crimes and misdemeanors” creating the basis for these proceedings amount, in totality, to the extreme level of Trump and his administration.

Partisan politics has always played a role in impeachment, which is why we consider it a “political process.” Alexander Hamilton warned us of this in the Federalist Papers. However, it is the mechanism by which the Framers provided Congress to deal with removing a President from office. The 25th Amendment came later to add an additional layer of options to address circumstances such as incapacity and unfitness for office. I’m unclear what the line is at this point that would need to be crossed to fit any of the criteria in the Constitution because that ship, where Trump is concerned, has also sailed long ago. His unfitness for the office is obvious to most thinking people. The fact he has used his office for self-interest, power, and personal gain for him and his family is a giant neon sign. The fact he has failed to uphold his oath of office repeatedly is also a giant neon sign. The fact he is hiding LITERALLY everything from public view, and according to the Mueller Report, because he fears things will be perceived as crimes, (which means they are likely crimes), should give more people in his party pause than it does.

There is apparently no line he can cross, but for Bill Clinton, it was lying to Congress about an affair. Nixon had tapes. But Trump isn’t on tape (yet, that we know of), yet it’s clear as day that his conduct is significantly worse than anything Clinton or Nixon did.

We have to save our democracy. This isn’t about Democrats or Republicans. It’s about saving our democracy.

Nancy Pelosi in a conference call with House Democrats 4.22.19

2. It’s Divisive. There are ways to hold Trump accountable “outside Impeachment hearings.”

Impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless there’s something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, I don’t think we should go down that path, because it divides the country. And he’s just not worth it.

Nancy Pelosi, March 11, 2019

Trump may not be worth it, but is our Democracy worth it? Is a functioning government worth it? Is ensuring Trump doesn’t continue to consolidate the powers of the government under the Executive Branch, a slow-walking coup to usurp powers from the co-equal branches of government, while the Republicans in the Senate stand by and watch.

Congressional Republicans since
Trump took office in 2017

The country has been divided pretty much since Obama took office – and before. It’s hard to pinpoint the exact moment we turned from “non-divisive” to “divisive.” To use this as an argument to NOT impeach a president who has burned down all norms of the Presidency, and made the United States a laughing stock around the world, reeks of excuse. The real reason is that division leads to difficult elections, and elections have consequences. Let’s roll the dice and gamble whether the government will continue to function if/when Donald Trump is re-elected in 2020, or if Nancy Pelosi will still be Speaker if she supports impeachment.

I’d prefer some confidence in knowing there will be future elections, and if that means suffering at the hands of a non-Pelosi-led House in 2020, I think I’m okay with that. This is not about winning elections. Impeachment may shift our already giant divide a bit further, but that’s a risk I’m willing to support. Unless you’ve been living under a rock, or proudly “not following politics,” you know it’s pretty damn bad. This argument is nothing more than leading from a place of fear. And if this is how our leaders are going to lead, I would rather they lose their elections.

Elizabeth Warren did an excellent job making the point on The Rachel Maddow Show on 4.19.2019 as to what is at stake, that this is not about Trump.

3. We need to wait for the Mueller Report/Smoking Gun/Mueller’s Testimony

Here’s how things have gone:

Congress: Let’s wait for the Mueller Report. I want to see what’s in it. Then we’ll figure out what to do.

[30 + people, including several closest to Trump are indicted. Mueller Report comes out.]

Congress: Now we need the full Mueller Report. Just to be sure that there’s more bad stuff under the redactions. There’s still no smoking gun. Also we need to have hearings.

[Full report comes out. Mueller Testifies. McGahn Testifies. Cohen already testified. Barr testifies again and lies. Books have been written with inside accounts on top of 2+ years of excellent journalism reporting on all the very bad things.]

Congress: It’s still not time. Let’s just wait for the voters. I don’t want to lose my seat no matter how many bad acts this president commits.

It’s exhausting. Stop trying to make those of us watching in horror feel like we are somehow overreacting by counseling there isn’t enough there. Maybe Congress is underreacting. Congress is gambling with their seats either way. The voters could turn against them for not taking action, just as much as they might for taking action. Some things are not about winning or keeping your power. Some things are greater than that. To put self-interest in winning an election above country is to put you on an equal plane with Trump. Enough.

4. The election is next year. Let the Voter’s Decide

The American people may well elect a President who decides to nominate Judge Garland for Senate consideration. The next president may also nominate someone very different. Either way, our view is this: Give the people a voice in the filling of this vacancy.

McConnell said in a Senate floor speech March 16, 2016.

Remember Merrick Garland? You know, the Supreme Court Justice Nominee from Obama who was never given a hearing by the Republican-led Senate, and now is the chief accomplishment Mitch McConnell is touting in his re-election campaign? McConnell is proudly telling his voters “I shirked my Constitutional duty to stick it to Obama and to do something to further my own political agenda.”

As discussed above, the duty to “advise and consent” on Supreme Court nominees is a required, delegated duty under the U.S. Constitution to members of the Senate. It does not include “unless there is an election coming up; then wait to see who the voters elect.” The Framers created the Supreme Court as an independent body to check Congress and the President, with the expectation, as part of that check, both of those other branches must be involved in the process. McConnell abdicated that duty and Democrats are STILL very very very mad about that today. And rightly so.

I have trouble seeing how this is different. The Constitution outlines a procedure for Impeachment, delegated to the House, the Senate and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court when the President is the officer in question. It doesn’t state “unless an election is coming up.” So each Democrat who is angry about Merrick Garland but counseling “let the voters decide,” how are you any different from McConnell, and those who supported his inactions?

And speaking of slippery slopes, where does this “there’s an election coming up” end? First, with Garland, it is “Not during an election year.”

With Impeachment, it’s “there’s an election NEXT year (one year and 7 months away). What’s next? Where the next duty comes up that isn’t politically expedient to uphold “There’s an election coming up one day in the future”?

Where Things Are At:

Pelosi’s stance yesterday, on its face, seems logical and sensible. She is calling for hearings, now that we have the Mueller Report, and suggests there are ways to hold Trump accountable “outside impeachment hearings.” I have yet to hear her explain what ways those are.

We have a report that outlines abhorrent and unpresidential behavior. Next, we hold hearings and get Mueller, Barr, McGahn and whomever else in front of Congress to provide public testimony. Then what?

If Impeachment proceedings are not called for next, but accountability IS, there is no other mechanism to stop this madness beyond Impeachment or the 2020 election, both which are partisan and can be manipulated.

So what is this “other way” to hold him accountable? Censure him? Big deal. That is nothing more than symbolic and he blows it off as more of the witch hunt.

What impeachment proceedings do is force members of Congress to go on the record, particularly the Senate, to either state this conduct will not be tolerated, or profess publicly they do not care. Voting records have consequences.

Public opinion on Brett Kavanaugh shifted when he testified before the Senate PUBLICLY, and we all could see for ourselves the temperament of this man, and hear the evidence for ourselves.

If the concern right now is whether there is enough Republican support to pass articles of impeachment, and subsequently, remove Trump from office, should the evidence support it, a public hearing(s) from Mueller, Barr, McGahn, among others, could very well move the needle. It is less likely the public will read the 400-page report. If the public can hear for themselves from Mueller, this could drive public pressure on Congress. Congressional Republicans DO care about re-election. Power seems to be the one thing they care the most about. Threaten the ability to retain that power, and the next steps may become more likely.

My fear, and it is not baseless, is that once hearings are held and the Republicans on the respective committees cry “POLITICAL THEATER!” as they’ve done, Pelosi will say “it’s still not time” despite her calls to follow the facts and evidence.

It’s time. American voters voted in 2018 for representatives to hold Trump accountable. Part of holding him accountable means impeachment, if it is warranted, because that is what the Constitution calls for. So please. Do your jobs. And let the chips fall. Shit or get off the pot. The state of our union demands it.

No Collusion!

How the Barr Letter Helps Trump and the GOP in 2020, and Why We Need to Acknowledge it Now.

The Mueller Report is in. The Barr Letter is out. Analysis and disappointment have followed. It was even more anti-climatic than I anticipated. The Mueller Report via the Barr Letter, so far, is not the undoing of the Trump presidency as many had hoped.

What the Barr Letter is:

1. A summary of a lengthy document, of which no one knows the size of yet, that amounts to 4 pages, and 4 partial quoted sentences from the Mueller Report, which means it is parsed and summarized by the current Attorney General to very possibly and likely fit a narrative he wants it to fit.
2. A conclusion that no one in the Trump orbit “colluded” with Russia in a manner to REACH CRIMINAL LIABILITY. Remember when Comey said the same thing about Hillary and her emails? He said Hillary did wrong to some extent but it did not rise to the level of meeting the requirements to be a CRIME. The Barr letter, and the bits from Mueller we heard suggest the same thing. Mueller explicitly did not exonerate Trump from wrongdoing. Like the Hillary Email Investigation, there is not enough evidence to support a finding beyond a reasonable doubt of criminality.
3. An assurance 2020 will be much harder to win for the Democrats, without facing some hard truths now, and putting in the hard work necessary.
4. More reason for the GOP Congress to continue to support this President and shirk its duties of oversight of the Executive Branch.

What the Barr Letter is Not:

1. A definitive conclusion of what Mueller said. It is missing ALL the context, all the evidence to support the few pieces of information the public has been provided, and it is unclear how Barr interpreted and parsed the Report to fit a narrative that favors the President.
2. A finding that Trump and his campaign did nothing WRONG, unethical, improper, borderline “criminal,” or didn’t act in a manner that could warrant impeachment and removal from office, or even warrant criminal charges still.
3. An end to the numerous ongoing criminal investigations into the Trump family, organization, campaign and foundation in other jurisdictions, where conduct fell outside the scope of Mueller’s directives and he passed it onto appropriate offices to handle.
4. A comfort that our Democracy is holding onto the principles espoused in the Constitution. This narrative, without knowing the full picture of the report, will further denigrate the institutions of our government.

Still trying to understand what “did not establish” collusion means. We’ll have to see Mueller’s full report to know. It could mean there was virtually no evidence. It could also mean there was a lot but not quite proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The difference is significant.

— Joyce Alene (@JoyceWhiteVance) March 25, 2019

Can we, or will we, accept the “No Collusion” conclusion. More importantly, will it matter if we do?

It is important for us, as a country, to accept the finding of no criminal conspiracy to work with Russia to win the election. We accepted the same about Hillary and her emails (as Democrats, anyway). Think about how we all felt as the GOP dwelled on the emails, and on the FBI’s improper lack of finding criminality; how Trey Gowdy, Jim Jordan, and others tried endlessly to bring Hillary down over Benghazi and her emails – FOR YEARS.

Imagine, today, if Democrats do the exact same thing with “collusion.” It will not be the same result as the Republicans have with the same. There’s a very good reason why when something happens that affects one party, like it had just done to the other, one party gets away with it more than the other.

FACT: The Republican party as a whole is more effective at coming together and relaying a cohesive message, and is more effective at making use of whatever that message may be. (“…but her EMAILS!”) Democrats tend to intellectualize everything to the point of muddying the message and lacking that same repetitive, cohesiveness. Worse, the “left,” whether you identify with a party or not, fight each other bitterly and unexplainably, while the “right” bands together, regardless of their underlying differences in policy positions.

Why is 2020 Going to Be Harder to Win?

Perception is everything. Reality is nothing. Too definitive a statement? Perhaps. But if you take a look at the past years, facts have lost all meaning and the perception of what is happening triumphs.

What happens next is this: the Barr Letter becomes the talking point for the entire Republican party. “Trump is totally and completely exonerated” said Sarah Sanders, as did a Trump tweet. This has been echoed by numerous people on the right. “The cloud has lifted from the Trump Presidency!”

Next comes “it’s time to move on and govern” finger-wagging from the right at the left. (See Mike Pence’s lengthy statement suggesting such)

This is going to be followed by the continued, and now emboldened, cries from the GOP to investigate the inappropriate use of the FBI to conduct politically biased investigations during the Obama Administration, and to hold someone accountable.

When the Congressional Dems continue their very legitimate oversight investigations into the numerous issues that are beyond the reach of Mueller’s investigation, the Congressional Republicans and Trump will be screaming “There was no collusion. They’re obsessed. They hate Trump so much they can’t accept this and let go.”

Middle America – and middle-sitting voters – who don’t care about this and who haven’t been waiting obsessively for the Mueller Report like many of us have, legitimately, will become annoyed. They waited to hear what Mueller had to say. Mueller had his say. Can’t we move on? My family doesn’t have healthcare. My wages are too low. My rents are too high. My town keeps flooding. When is the government going to focus on solving my problems!? The ones that affect me and my family, and my children’s future?

If they continue to hear the battle cry from the right that the left is obsessed with bringing Trump down, and not with governing to fix the bigger issues faced by society at large, and more importantly, their communities, Trump is going to start to look like the better person.

FACT: Trump and the GOP now have the time between the Barr Letter and the release of the full Mueller Report IF that ever happens, to drive home the “total and complete exoneration” of Trump. The more that is repeated, the more it becomes the perceived reality – regardless what reality actually is – and it won’t matter what the Mueller Report actually says. Bottom line “NO COLLUSION.”

And FACT: Trump was right. Trump has been saying this all along. “No Collusion” is no longer a “lie” or a crazy ridiculous Trump Tweet. It is now a factually-based finding. (Am I correct when I say this? Maybe. It won’t matter. This is what the right and the middle-who-don’t-care-about-taking-down-trump will find to be real).

BOTTOM LINE:

We have a problem on the left. We can’t seem to all get along. Many of us are well-educated, intellectual thinkers. And it shows. And yes, that can be a problem. More than likely that thinking is attracting like thinkers, who already are on somewhat the same page, and again, leaves out those middle-sitting voters who don’t care about intelligent discussions about politics.

When the left tosses around big words and lengthy explanations that the average person can’t relate to, it loses all meaning.

Some of us on the left are so busy being hateful towards certain candidates in the running that they can’t see their own extremism shutting down the people they are trying to convince to come to their side. Rather than focus on the good they see in their favored candidate, they take every opportunity to forcefully oppose the other candidates running. Who wants to vote for the least terrible candidate? That’s all this is going to end up doing. We want to vote for the best candidate. If you believe in your candidate(s), tell people why. Stop forcing the negatives down everyone’s throat of the many candidates you don’t support. It’s a weird way to win supporters.

The people who do not want to see Trump win a second term all need to find a way to come together – especially after the primary – and not do what was done in 2016. The primary can be a fight for who will be the better candidate to “beat Trump,” but once that candidate is chosen, EVERYONE needs to come together and back that candidate. If hatred for certain candidates blinds people so much, and that “hated” candidate becomes the nominee, it will all but assure Trump’s reelection if people can’t get past that to vote for the Dem nominee.

FACT: The only hope to beat Trump is to drive voter turnout.

Obama had turnout on his side. His victory in 2008 can be attributed to his ability to motivate people who had typically not voted in the past to get out and vote. He inspired young people with his hopey-changey stuff. They voted. He inspired minority voters. He inspired so many of us to think there was hope after 8 years of W.

Trump also had turnout on his side – twofold. He motivated people on the right who typically didn’t vote to get out and vote for him. And while he was inspiring the nonvoters on the right to vote for him, a weak/disappointing/insert-descriptor-here-of-HRC caused a lack of motivation to vote on the left.

Who can inspire turnout? Who can motivate young people to vote for the first time in their life? Who can motivate the nonvoters who sat out the last election because Hillary and Trump offered no good choices? Who can provide some innovative thinking? Who is going to talk to voters like they understand the middle-of-the-country who are so affected by the death of the American Dream (in their perception) that they turned to Trump? Who is going to talk to voters with that understanding rather than push a counter-narrative that the American Dream is NOT dead, a narrative that does not resonate with the voters candidates should be targeting?

The Democrats have a lot of work to do to get past their own ideals of what will beat Trump. Maybe a known name can beat him. But maybe it can’t. Hillary was a known name. Her baggage became her undoing, whether fairly or unfairly.

The Democrats need to find messaging that isn’t overly intellectualized, and even if it is, that is cohesive, and that Democrats will all agree to stay on message about. This should not be a message forced upon candidates by the DNC. There needs to be some coming together and acceptance of the outside forces that are influencing shifts in the party.

If we’re not careful, we will hand Donald Trump the election. And after this weekend, that became a much more real possibility – but there’s still time to learn some lessons and stop it.

**Added 3.16.19 – Recent Media Reporting and comments supporting the emboldened Republican Party in light of Barr Letter.

Today is a great day for America, @POTUS Trump and our entire administration. My statement: pic.twitter.com/Rl9H160ZKD

— Vice President Mike Pence Archived (@VP45) March 24, 2019

The Trump campaign is sending this memo to TV producers: pic.twitter.com/yhr03LAI7N

— Jonathan Swan (@jonathanvswan) March 25, 2019

The real witch hunt begins: Trump and GOP Allies Want Investigation of Mueller Probe's Roots https://t.co/J0Uy9ynwgs

— James S.Henry, Esq. (@submergingmkt) March 26, 2019

Special counsel Robert Mueller has given the Trump Train a shot of rocket fuel, the president's allies say — and now Republicans want to turn that momentum into payback.https://t.co/7Q9rsVa3vC

— NPR (@NPR) March 26, 2019

It’ll take a while to break through, but it’s real: After what was probably the best day Trump has had as president, the Justice Department lit the fuse to reignite the health care wars that served Democrats so well in the midtermshttps://t.co/ZGY9pIb2V6

— Sam Baker (@sam_baker) March 26, 2019

A second source, who was with Trump over the weekend in Palm Beach, said Trump mentioned "a couple of times, Paul Manafort's situation and how he was treated very unfairly. He said the guy was prosecuted because he worked for me." https://t.co/zaFrS2us30

— Jonathan Swan (@jonathanvswan) March 26, 2019

Unify or Die Fund:

Where to Donate if you Don’t Care Who Wins the Primary, but Want to Support the General Election Candidate.

Established by Crooked Media, the people who bring you Pod Save American and Vote Save America.

To Quote the Source Web Page for the Fund:

The Unify or Die Fund

Let’s Take Back the White House!

This will be the most important Democratic primary in our lifetime. It’ll be inspiring, contentious, and last roughly 1,000 years. But when it’s over—no matter which candidate we fought for, and even if we didn’t see eye to eye—it’ll be up to every single one of us to work together to accomplish our greatest mission: taking back our country.

It starts right now. 100% of your donation to the Unify or Die Fund will go to the eventual Democratic nominee for President, exactly when they need it most: right after the convention in July 2020, as they enter the general election.

Republicans are already building up Trump’s war chest. We can’t afford to wait. Donate today!

To Donate, Go Here

Leadership in the Face of Crisis – New Zealand

In the face of senseless acts of violence, whether in the United States, or across the globe, our President is called to provide leadership and comfort when the hatred of a few is used to terrorize us all. Unfortunately, as Americans, we find it almost a normal occurrence, the need to offer thoughts, prayers, condolences and words of solidarity for mass murder fueled by hatred. Below is only the twitter responses of the various candidates running for President in 2020. You can decide for yourself how this reflects their leadership styles.

My heart is heavy with grief for New Zealand & Muslims worldwide affected by the tragic murders in Christchurch. The massacre of those in a house of worship, in prayer, is evil & cowardly. We stand with our friends around the world to condemn hate & speak out against intolerance.

— Kamala Harris (@KamalaHarris) March 15, 2019

Some words for South Bend's Muslim community. pic.twitter.com/CyLZOrah7b

— Pete Buttigieg (@PeteButtigieg) March 15, 2019

Charleston. Orlando. Pittsburgh. Christchurch. We face a global epidemic of hate. How we end it is a not just matter of policy but, above all, one of leadership.

— Pete Buttigieg (@PeteButtigieg) March 15, 2019

And yet again, the obvious bears repeating: white nationalism kills.

— Pete Buttigieg (@PeteButtigieg) March 15, 2019

I’m sickened by the news coming out of New Zealand—the horrific terrorist attack targeting Muslims at prayer that killed at least 49 people.

The rising tide of white supremacy and Islamophobia around the globe must be met with our determination to work against hate.

— Cory Booker (@CoryBooker) March 15, 2019

.@jacindaardern we mourn with you, the Muslim community, and all New Zealanders. We join you in standing up to hatred and extremism at home and around the world—today and every day. https://t.co/U3ha7jY5xK

— Elizabeth Warren (@ewarren) March 15, 2019

My heart is with the people of New Zealand and the entire Muslim community this morning. We must always stand against acts of terror and hate.

— Julián Castro (@JulianCastro) March 15, 2019

On behalf of Jill, myself, and all of the Bidens, our hearts go out to the community in Christchurch suffering from today’s senseless violence. Friday prayers for those who were gathered at their mosques has seen families torn apart by hate.

— Joe Biden (@JoeBiden) March 15, 2019

Silence is complicity. Our children are listening. The time to speak out is now.

— Joe Biden (@JoeBiden) March 15, 2019

We don't back down in the face of Islamophobia and racism at home or abroad. We stand up, stand together and make it clear that terrorism won't be met with indifference but with action that honors our diversity as the people of the world. Thinking of our friends in New Zealand.

— Beto O'Rourke (@BetoORourke) March 15, 2019

April and I offer our condolences to the people of New Zealand and our prayers to those directly impacted by this horrific event. Americans stand firmly with you in our work to eradicate hate and senseless violence and to make the world safer. We will get through this together.

— John Delaney 🇺🇸 (@JohnDelaney) March 15, 2019

Hateful rhetoric leads to hateful violence. We must continue to speak loudly and stand strong for the rights of people of all faiths, orientations and nationalities.

— Governor Jay Inslee (@GovInslee) March 15, 2019

The shooting in New Zealand is a horrific tragedy and reflects the worst form of depravity. Islamophobia and anti-immigrant sentiment are the opposite of what we stand for. My heart goes out to the families and communities affected. Love and humanity first.

— Andrew Yang🧢⬆️🇺🇸 (@AndrewYang) March 15, 2019

As the son of immigrants attacks on immigrant communities pain me on on a personal level. Everyone wants to make a better life for their families. There is a place for everyone. There is no place for hate.

— Andrew Yang🧢⬆️🇺🇸 (@AndrewYang) March 15, 2019

We must condemn hate without equivocation and stand up for its victims, whether they worship in our Mosques, synagogues or churches https://t.co/Cl9zJdh0Wn

— Amy Klobuchar (@amyklobuchar) March 15, 2019

We can’t accept a world where people are murdered because of who they are and where they worship—whether it’s mosques in Christchurch, an AME church in SC or a synagogue in PA. I’m praying for these communities and stand with them against hate, white supremacy and terrorism.

— Kirsten Gillibrand (@SenGillibrand) March 15, 2019

Now that's an idea. https://t.co/l6c5VCexj9

— Kirsten Gillibrand (@SenGillibrand) March 15, 2019

Our thoughts are with the victims of the horrific attack in Christchurch, New Zealand. No one should have to fear for their life because of their religion. We must come together to condemn all forms of hate and violence to build a future of respect and understanding.

— Bernie Sanders (@BernieSanders) March 15, 2019

The massacre in Christchurch is the bitter fruit of hatred rooted in racism and religious bigotry. We must stand as one and condemn these attacks on our Muslim brothers and sisters. For those suffering today, in New Zealand and around the world, we are with you.

— Tulsi Gabbard 🌺 (@TulsiGabbard) March 15, 2019

My warmest sympathy and best wishes goes out to the people of New Zealand after the horrible massacre in the Mosques. 49 innocent people have so senselessly died, with so many more seriously injured. The U.S. stands by New Zealand for anything we can do. God bless all!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 15, 2019

The last few days have been filled with hate and senseless death. My heart goes out to those affected by the violence in New Zealand and Brazil. The rhetoric of a hate-filled few has no place in our society.

— Gov. Bill Weld (@GovBillWeld) March 15, 2019

Social Media Challenge

Challenge: Instead of posting on social media about the candidates you don’t think SHOULD win in 2020, post and share with your networks the candidates you DO like, and why you like them. Isn’t it a more effective strategy to persuade people to support the candidates that excite you rather than tear down the ones that don’t, in hopes others will agree? The latter is out of fear that they are going to do well. The best counter to candidates that might do well, that you do not support, is to campaign for and support the candidates you do hope to see win, and get out the vote for those candidates. A bunch of negativity floating around social media, adding to the already negative/slanted news articles and media reporting is not productive. We can be better than that, and there are so many candidates to choose from in the primary.

People who supported Bernie in the primary in 2016 spent a lot of energy tearing down HRC. When it came time for the general election, rather than rallying around the candidate to prevent a demagogue from becoming president, those negative stories persisted. Don’t be a part of that … we need to all come together no matter who the nominee is in 2020.

Convince your friends, family and networks WHY they should care about the candidates you care about, without tearing down another candidate to do it. That is the challenge.

Reader Question: Define Someone who can “beat Trump”

Through my many conversations with various individuals about the numerous candidates running to be the President in 2020, the common thread is everyone wants to vote for the person “who can beat Trump.”

One of the dilemmas that faced each and every other Republican contender in the 2016 election, and the Democratic candidates equally is how to beat Trump. No matter what happened, no matter how bad the scandal that surfaced, no matter WHAT, Trump kept winning. At this point, we are basically numb to all his scandals, being showered with them in tidal waves every single day. It’s become difficult to be shocked by anything he does.

Despite all we know, the other problem is every other politician seems to be held to a different, higher standard than Trump. Trump is praised when he acts human in any given situation, for 5 minutes, like he did something earth-shattering; when in reality the earth-shattering incidents should be the scandals, the self-dealings, the nepotism, and the constant nature of putting the country’s national security at risk.

So I ask, in the face of these obstacles, what factors are you using in your determination of who can “beat Trump”? What makes someone capable of beating Trump?

If you’re looking for someone who can drive high turnout – what must that candidate possess to achieve that?

How do we figure out who can “beat Trump” when no one has been able to do so yet, he is held to a much lower standard than anyone else, and he doesn’t play fair?

Please leave your thoughts in the comments.

DEAR MEDIA: PLEASE STOP BEING OVERLY DRAMATIC

On Friday, the Washington Post published this story, which by day’s end, had taken on a life of its own with stories published in the Washington Examiner and numerous other media sources latching onto the story. By Saturday morning, on Up with David Gura, the story was being repeated by Michael Steele, with no correction.

Can we please look at the context of this story, and what actually happened?

According to the article, “Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez threatened to put those voting with Republicans ‘on a list’ for a primary challenge.”

Her spokesperson then further stated she said Democrats who side with Republicans “are putting themselves on a list,” adding that voters will ask her which Democrats voted with the Republicans on horrifying bills, and she will give the names to them.

What is missing: Her ACTUAL COMMENTS from this closed-door meeting. I have seen no direct quote that can be attributed to her as “threatening” her colleagues. If the media has those quotes, PLEASE PUBLISH THEM. It is my sense they either don’t have the quote, or they do, and it doesn’t play into the nefarious, inflammatory nature of the piece, so it was left out.

What is true: ANY VOTE MADE BY ANY CONGRESS PERSON IS AN OFFICIAL PUBLIC RECORD. This means, any democrat voting with Republicans on any type of abhorrent bill, like the one at issue that gave rise to AOC’s comments, ARE, in fact, putting themselves on a VERY PUBLIC LIST. Any voter who wants to can locate who voted which way on any given bill.

This is not AOC putting them on a list. The list creates itself as a matter of law.

This is AOC being transparent with her constituents who ask her questions. Not creating some kind of “hit list” for the primaries. And anyone who believes this, buys into it, or more importantly, anyone in a position to correct this but instead repeats it and continues to give it life, is ignoring the reality.

Who will be the first to correct the record appropriately?

Can we please be better than this leading up to 2020?

What Can We Tolerate in Our Leadership?

Is it more important to have zero tolerance based on any event or occurrence of bad behavior/bad judgment in a politicians entire life time, even if it was 40-50 years ago, or is it important how that person has evolved since that incident, how they deal with such revelations or how they demonstrate leadership in the face of such revelations?

Judgment is clearly a necessary factor to determine competency to hold a higher office. When negative revelations from one’s past are exposed, judgment is required in handling such revelations. That can be good or bad. Some will own up to it, apologize, show how they have changed, make a plan to do better and be a leader for change, and follow through. Others, either out of embarrassment or possibly still embracing whatever intolerable intolerance, will make a mess of dealing with such.

Racism and sexual assault are two very specific issues that require little to no tolerance. However, the zero tolerance approach to racist attitudes has taken me aback to some extent.

It is fact that attitudes in any society take decades to shift. It is evident today, in the year 2019, that attitudes about race STILL have a ways to go. Which is why it strikes me as intolerance in itself to judge someone by one action that occurred 40-50 years ago that is offensive and racist.

I repeat: TO JUDGE SOMEONE BY ONE ACTION THAT HAPPENED 40-50 YEARS AGO.

A lot of headway can be made in 40-50 years to shift someone’s attitudes about racism. The real question is in whether it was an isolated incident, or if it is prevalent throughout the next 40-50 years of that person’s life. People deserve some credit for examining their own attitudes and beliefs, and reaching a conclusion they were wrong. And in that wrongness, they change their behaviors, attitudes and work to do the same in their communities, families, and in others.

This is especially important in political leadership. Do we want the government leader who is always going to be just a product of a bad/offensive decision or cannot see the error made or find a way to incorporate it into his leadership to further the important conversation? Or do we want the leader who can say “I was wrong. I did something stupid. I have learned and shifted, and can show I have changed by the actions since that time.”

Personally, I want the second type of leader. The first type of leader is the one that is either stuck in a past our country wants to move forward from or cannot admit to, or come to terms with, his or her past bad acts. The second type shows the kind of leadership we all should desire. Someone who can reflect and adjust, admit they were wrong and find a way to turn that into productive action. We cannot erase our racist past as a country by shunning every person who once held a racist belief or did something offensive. That is not a productive solution.

We should shun those who still hold onto those beliefs or who cannot see the error in their ways. We should shun those from leadership who show bad judgment and cannot handle such revelations in any way to comfort those who elected them that even though they might not be that racist person today, they can lead through a crisis of sorts (in this case, one of their own making).

It becomes a very different story if a crime was committed – either a hate crime driven by racial animus or whatever the case may be, or sexual assault. I’ve been asked why the sexual assault allegations were fatal for Brett Kavanaugh to not deserve his seat on the Supreme court. For one, they did not appear “isolated” to one incident. For another, he allegedly attacked a woman who proved to be a very credible witness. That’s not just offensive. That’s criminal.

People, like the attitudes in society, change. It is understandable we want to hold our leadership to a high moral standard. However, it is not always fair to judge someone by one or two acts in their “youth.” (Youthful indiscretion- subjective based on the maturity of the person, not always the age or the type of school they are attending). It is important, like most things, to understand that context and bigger picture. I certainly don’t want to be judged for everything I did when I was 14, 20, 25, or even 30. I’ve grown and changed a lot over that time, including my attitudes and beliefs on certain issues.

And if we want to encourage people to reflect, understand how something like racism is wrong, and to shift society’s attitudes and beliefs, are we going to do that by punishing everyone, regardless of their personal evolution over 40-50 years, from being leaders in government? That’s counterproductive if you ask me. If there are people who have truly evolved and can be examples for others, aren’t those the kind of moral leaders we WANT to move society forward?

It’s almost 2019.

So are you ready for 2020?

In an effort to educate the public while we suffer through a lengthy, and possibly wild, primary and general election season leading up to 2020, I am going to feature a weekly blog post on each candidate who announces a run or an exploratory committee, to help us get to know them.

The media is failing in this regard for the most part, and it is up to us, as citizens, to get to know the candidates and decide who the “major” candidates are and are not. The media should not be declaring this for us. It relegates other, lesser known candidates to a position of insignificance.

The sad fact is we have spent a lot of time since 2016 talking about how Russia influenced voters in that election, but no one talks about the everyday influence of the media that is then echoed on social media and at family dinners; things that make no sense; things that dictate the outcome more than Russia ever could.

Subtle commentary like calling Elizabeth Warren the first “major” candidate to announce, when she hasn’t actually announced a run yet, just an exploratory committee, translates to the public saying things like “it officially begins!” while retweeting the tweet from the media organization that called her the first “major” candidate (I’m looking at you MSNBC and New York Times).

Media: please let us decide who should be “major” and who should be insignificant by their policy positions and alignment with what we, as Americans, want to see in our government.

The rest of you, I challenge you as we begin a new year, to be more aware of these nuanced-subtle comments that unconsciously shape our views of candidates for office, and do your own homework. Find the candidate that best aligns with you, and what you want to see in our country, and vote for THAT person in the primary, not the person the media and talking heads are pointing your attention to all the time. It’s anyone’s guess what “electability” will mean in 2020.

Stay tuned for the first post on Democratic candidate, John Delaney, who is the only official candidate to announce, and potential candidate, Julian Castro, who formed an exploratory committee a couple weeks ago.

2019: A Fact-Finding Mission

5 Reliable Sources for Facts and Context

If you’re looking for a new year’s resolution for 2019, how about a renewed relationship to facts and context? We all fall for the snappy headline that triggers our anger and the “share” button a bit too quickly. The past two years have shed light on the need to remember FACTS and CONTEXT MATTER. Any sliver of a comment or data can be twisted to mean numerous things when not placed in the proper context, or how the person saying it meant it.

As we head into the 2020 Presidential Election (yup, that’s coming at us fast and furious), this is going to be more important than ever. I already see potential Democratic candidates being villainized for a sliver of a comment they made, taken out of context, or things they’ve done, expressed in a headline with no further context. That context IS THE FACTS. The two work together. Embrace them and fight your urge to stop reading at the headline that is making you angry, open the article, get the context before you hit the “share” button.

Whether you want to admit it or not, some of you fell prey to Russian propaganda and the disinformation campaign to influence the 2016 U.S. election, and believed the terrible things they wanted you to believe about Hillary Clinton. Some of you repeated those things to me, that I have now seen produced in the past year as identified examples of Russian involvement.

But you’re also falling prey to the disinformation campaigns that occur daily in our media. The media, and social media, influences you every day, shaping what they think is important to focus our attention on based on what brings them ratings, with their chosen narrative. When the media ignores facts, brings on guests to spout their own opinions as fact, crafts misleading stories, or spends its air time on one candidate versus any of the others because, rather than inform viewers, it wants to earn ratings, and you buy into that, you’re falling for the influence campaign going on within the U.S.

Anyone who knows me will tell you I’m a stickler for facts. I follow what’s going on in the world closely and I am skeptical of sources, so I read the underlying lawsuit, or reserve judgment on something that sounds unreal until there are actual facts and evidence to support it. I am insanely critical of media sources and find some okay some of the time but most can do better with misleading headlines or tweets to rack up clicks, or word choices that can make one thing sound more nefarious/less bad, etc. than it actually is.

In the past two years especially, it has been enlightening to watch how people cover the Trump Era, and what they allow to pass or to diminish/help normalize by saying things don’t matter, or “oh it’s Trump being Trump!” CNN, while watched by many as the in between to Fox and MSNBC, is off my list completely for the number of times I am disappointed at the allowance of guests to spout lies without any pushback. It’s one thing to have views from “both sides” represented. It’s another entirely to knowingly allow either side to lie or misrepresent facts on air. Those are “opinions” and if your goal is to find people who agree with what you believe, and are willing to say anything to make reality sync up with your beliefs, that’s your choice. However, I challenge you in 2019 to try to move outside your bubble, and try to differentiate between facts/evidence and opinions of talking heads on news programs. And to pay attention to context.

As the 2020 election comes into focus, I challenge you to reject sources that parse every word a candidate says, taking it out of its context. When you see a headline refer to something terrible someone said, I challenge you to open that article and read/find the actual quote the person said to see if it’s really as bad as the headline is telling you – 90% of the time, it is not.

5 Reliable Sources for Facts and Context

This is a short list, out of many. I have my reasons for leaving certain sources off of this list. These are not the only sources I pay attention to – there’s a reason I am well aware of media sources misrepresenting facts or holding panels filled with opinions-presented-as-facts that aren’t often accurate – I pay attention to a wide variety. These are the 5 sources I trust for factual information and to provide proper context based in facts, data and available evidence. And yes, as my list will show, the comedians are doing better sometimes than the media.

Vox (www.vox.com)

With its 5-minute explainer videos of topics impacting the U.S. and other parts of the world, and bullet-pointed articles, these easy-to-understand and short reads help even the lesser-engaged person get the gist of some major things pretty quickly.

The Beat with Ari Melber (6 pm EST/MSNBC)

Hosted by Ari Melber, a lawyer who sticks to facts and evidence – insists on it with his guests – and often resorts to quoting hip hop lyrics, produces some of the best legal analysis on TV, especially when so much going on in the news these day is law-related. My mom loves the show because he explains things in a way she can understand and relate to, and he has guests with genuine expertise in topics being discussed. Also, he refuses to cover Trump’s tweets, unless on a rare occasion, it is extremely relevant to the story.

Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (Sunday Nights/HBO or YouTube)

John Oliver, a comedian, has done an exponentially better job doing in-depth reporting or basic explainers of complicated, but important issues. You get facts while being entertained and horrified at the same time, presented in a way everyone can understand and that makes even the most driest of subjects worth watching. Don’t believe me? Check out any of these segments to get you started:

Border Walls

Net Neutrality (Part 1 and Part 2)

Government Surveillance (Interview with Edward Snowden)

Pod Save America/Crooked Media (Podcast) – If you’re not huge into podcasts, like me, you can watch the Pod on YouTube as they livestream each pod recording. The brainchild of Jon Favreau, Jon Lovett, Tommy Vietor and Dan Pfeiffer, all formerly of the Obama White House. These are smart guys, that come with some sarcastic rage and wit. They also launched the website http://www.VoteSaveAmerica.com during the midterms, to make voting and registration and information easily accessible. They quickly became a must-listen podcast at the start of 2017 and it’s easy to understand why after a listen.

Late Night with Seth Meyers, “A Closer Look” Segments (Weeknights, NBC) – Another comedian. Why? Because I like my facts with a heavy dose of wit and sarcasm. It somehow makes it all a little less painful. Plus, Meyers has done a fantastic job with this segment over the last two years in making it as informative and factual as it is funny. Also, it doesn’t hurt that he has a variety of politicians and leaders on social issues on as guests frequently. Follow him on Facebook or subscribe to his YouTube channel if you’re not likely to stay up late night to catch the show.

As far as MSM (“mainstream media” for those who loathe acronyms like I do), MSNBC has stepped up to its responsibility as one of the major media networks. It still has work to do, but for the most part, it has stepped back from having people on air who are there to spout made-up talking points that are blatantly false, live-airing Trump rallies and press briefings, and have spent a great deal of time keeping the public informed of what’s really going on in America – they care about the facts and are doing some killer reporting and holding their guests to account for their nonsense. Nicole Wallace, Ali Velshi, Stephanie Ruhle, Chris Hayes, Joy Reid, Rachel Maddow

And for a bonus, on twitter, follow:

Jacob Soberoff – @jacobsoberoff – Reporter who has been following the imprisonment of children seeking refuge in America. His twitter feed is a great follow to get continuous reporting on this issue and others of equally great importance.

The bottom line, no matter what news sources you turn to, do so with a bit of skepticism, rather than eating up whatever is being fed to you. Dig a little deeper to learn about candidates for office, or that evil caravan in the news, and please, I beg of you, pay attention to context rather than parsing each and every thing to make it mean something it might not. And stop reading and sharing sources that do that kind of thing.

What sources do you turn to for facts and context?