Take Her Out

The latest in a long list of Trump's transgressions seems more than usually explosive:

A recording reviewed by ABC News appears to capture President Donald Trump telling associates he wanted the then-U.S. ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch fired while speaking at a small gathering that included Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman -- two former business associates of Trump’s personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani who have since been indicted in New York.

. . .

"Get rid of her!" is what the voice that appears to be Trump’s is heard saying. "Get her out tomorrow. I don't care. Get her out tomorrow. Take her out. OK? Do it."

It is utterly baffling that ABC presents this as Trump wanting Yovanovitch fired.  As numerous Trump supporters have pointed out since this news became public, all U.S. ambassadors serve "at the pleasure of the president", as they used to say on the West Wing, and so if Trump wanted her removed, all he needed to do was call HER and fire her.

Moreover, Parnas and Fruman are not U.S. civil servants, or government employees in any way.  It seems fairly clear that Trump's instruction to "take her out" can't possibly refer to firing her.  And if Trump wasn't ordering Parnas and Furman to fire her, we are forced to conclude that Trump's intent was more sinister.

As unthinkable as it is that a sitting U.S. president would demand that private citizens do harm to a U.S. ambassador, it is completely consistent with Trump's approach to 'governance' (for lack of a better term).  He has a long, colorful history of dehumanizing rhetoric and promoting violence.  Consider:

• He took out full-page ads in four separate newspapers demanding the death penalty for five young men accused of gang-raping a woman in Central Park.  Trump continued to insist the 'Central Park Five' were guilty long after DNA evidence and a confession from another man proved them innocent.
• Trump kicked off his presidential campaign by insisting that Mexican immigrants tend to be 'rapists' bringing 'drugs' and 'crime' to the U.S.  Three years later, he doubled-down on that belief, saying "These aren't people. These are animals."
• His hatred for people of color and immigrants isn't exclusive to Mexicans, as he frequently talks about 'infestation' when discussing predominantly black cities, and referring to 'shithole countries'.
• This isn't just talk.  Trump actually treated illegal immigrants as animals, showing no remorse even in the face of sexual abuse and death in detainment facilities.
• His rhetoric isn't limited to name-calling.  He explicitly campaigned, in part, on a promise to 'take out their families' --- innocent people, mind you --- as a way to combat terrorism.  Does that phrase sound familiar?
• He openly encourages violence against the media, including praising a GOP congressman who literally assaulted a reporter.
• He similarly encouraged law enforcement to physically abuse suspects (so much for 'innocent until proven guilty').
• If you're inclined to believe that Trump is all bark and no bite, recall that even Pentagon officials were stunned by Trump's bloodlust.  When presented with several options for handling Iran, Trump made the most extreme choice (assassinating Soleimani), even though that option was only presented to him to make other choices seems moderate.

This is a watershed moment in Trump's presidency.  Republicans in the Senate are on the verge of turning a blind eye to his behavior, which seems incredibly dangerous.  An acquittal will be a green light to Trump to give in to his worst instincts, and there's every reason to believe that those instincts are violent.  If the Senate doesn't remove Trump from the White House now, it is more likely than not that he will only leave in a body bag (death either by natural causes or as a result of some violent upheaval).

As awful as Trump's reign has been up to now, it is likely to be small potatoes compared to Trump unchained.  In fact, Trump has already given Senators a small taste of what they can expect:

CBS News reported late Thursday that a “Trump confidant” had issued a warning to wavering Republican Senators: “Vote against the president, and your head will be on a pike.”

Yes, this is just a metaphor --- but if Trump survives this trial, it is likely to be closer to reality than most are willing to imagine.

Demand a #FairSenateTrial

First, Trump released a damning transcript of his phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, claiming that it exonerated him.  This is what prompted impeachment hearings in the House.

Those hearings made it clear not only that Trump was demanding that Ukraine announce a bogus investigation into Joe Biden and his son in exchange for $400 million in foreign aid which had already been approved by Congress, but that he and his administration were working to cover it up.  At this point, GOP defenses for Trump have all been laughable, such as:

• We can't remove such a great president - this is self-evidently absurd
• Trump's impeachment is unconstitutional - Article II of the Constitution disagrees
• Trump committed no crime in withholding congressionally-approved funds in exchange for Ukraine's interference in the 2020 election - This sounds reasonable at first blush.  But the truth is that there is a deeply-grounded understanding in western law that non-criminal acts can be impeachable.  And then a few days ago, the Government Accountability Office concluded that Trump's actions were criminal anyway.

Despite the fact that this is an open-and-shut case to anyone who hasn't drunk the Trump Kool-Aid, multiple key players in the Senate have committed to willful ignorance, including most shamefully Lindsey Graham, who was one of Trump's few GOP critics 4 years ago; and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.

And McConnell isn't content to remain in ignorance all by himself.  McConnell and most (all?) other Republicans are so afraid of the truth that they don't want to hear witness testimony.  This clearly coordinates nicely with the Trump administration strategy of ignoring all House subpoenas.

The situation was already set up to be a laughable kangaroo court, before Lev Parnas went on the Rachel Maddow show on Wednesday, January 15 and directly implicated Trump in the criminal act.  He also implicated Mike Pence, Attorney General Bill Barr, and Republican congressman Devin Nunes.

In a sane world, Parnas would have been the first witness called by the Senate.  Actually, in a sane world, Mitch McConnell would already have traveled to the White House with Nancy Pelosi to explain to Trump that a vote for his removal is inevitable, and that he should resign immediately for the good of the country.

But of course, there is no honor among thieves, and there is no honor in the Republican party.  They still won't commit to hearing witness testimony, including alleged 'moderates' like Susan Collins of Maine.  Martha McSally of Arizona, who was actually defeated in her Senate race last fall, then appointed to John McCain's vacant seat, displayed Trumplike immaturity when, in response to a reporter's question about witnesses, called him a 'liberal hack' and slammed the door in his face. (Predictably, the Cult of Trump is applauding McSally's temper tantrum).

Obviously, Republicans are cowards who are afraid to cross Trump.  But the main reason they don't want to cross Trump is because they want to keep their seats in the Senate.  If appeals to common sense, the rule of law, or the Constitution were enough to make Republicans do the right thing, they would have done it by now.

So we need to use the only tool we have left: Make it clear to them that pledging allegiance to Trump instead of the country comes with a price.  Specifically, let them know that their cowardice will put money in their opponents' pockets.

Below, I have listed the 22 Republican senators up for re-election this year, and (where known) their Democratic opponents.  I'm urging everyone to donate what they can to these Democrats, and then let the Republicans know that the donations will keep coming unless they demand a #FairSenateTrial.

I have included contact information for the Republicans.  However, since most Senators filter out email from people who don't live in their state, I have also included their Twitter handles, so you can @ them directly.

State	Candidates	Notes
Alaska	Incumbent: (R) - Dan Sullivan @SenDanSullivan
	Challenger: (D) - ???
Arizona	Incumbent: (R) - Martha McSally @SenMcSallyAZ	McSally was appointed to John McCain's Senate seat last year after losing an election to Kyrsten Sinema 50.0% to 47.6%, and so faces an uphill battle
	Challenger: (D) - Mark Kelly Donate
Arkansas	Incumbent: (R) - Tom Cotton @SenTomCotton
	Challenger: (D) - ???
Colorado	Incumbent: (R) - Cory Gardner @SenCoryGardner	Hickenlooper is a very popular former governor, so Gardner is likely toast
	Challenger: (D) - John Hickenlooper Donate
Georgia	Incumbent: (R) - David Perdue @sendavidperdue
	Challenger: (D) - ???
Georgia	Incumbent: (R) - Kelly Loeffler @kloeffler	Loeffler was appointed to fill Johnny Isakson's seat, and has been in office less than a month. Georgia has been trending purple, so there's a decent chance of a Dem pickup here
	Challenger: (D) - ???
Idaho	Incumbent: (R) - Jim Risch @SenatorRisch
	Challenger: (D) - ???
Iowa	Incumbent: (R) - Joni Ernst @SenJoniErnst
	Challenger: (D) - Theresa Greenfield Donate
Kansas	Incumbent: (R) - Pat Roberts @SenPatRoberts	Roberts is retiring --- but still prefers Trump to the Constitution
	Challenger: (D) - ???
Kentucky	Incumbent: (R) - Mitch McConnell @senatemajldr
	Challenger: (D) - Amy McGrath Donate
Louisiana	Incumbent: (R) - Bill Cassidy @SenBillCassidy
	Challenger: (D) - ???
Maine	Incumbent: (R) - Susan Collins @SenatorCollins
	Challenger: (D) - Sara Gideon Donate
Mississippi	Incumbent: (R) - Cindy Hyde-Smith @SenHydeSmith	This is a rematch of a 2018 special election, where Hyde-Smith defeated Espy 53.6% - 46.4%
	Challenger: (D) - Mike Espy Donate
Montana	Incumbent: (R) - Steve Daines @SteveDaines
	Challenger: (D) - ???
Nebraska	Incumbent: (R) - Ben Sasse @BenSasse
	Challenger: (D) - ???
North Carolina	Incumbent: (R) - Thom Tillis @SenThomTillis	We don't know yet who will challenge Tillis, but ActBlue is taking donations and holding them until the Democratic nominee is determined
	Challenger: (D) - ??? Donate
Oklahoma	Incumbent: (R) - James Inhofe	Inhofe might be retiring --- but still prefers Trump to the Constitution
	Challenger: (D) - ???
South Carolina	Incumbent: (R) - Lindsey Graham @LindseyGrahamSC
	Challenger: (D) - Jaime Harrison Donate
South Dakota	Incumbent: (R) - Mike Rounds @SenatorRounds
	Challenger: (D) - ???
Tennessee	Incumbent: (R) - Lamar Alexander	Alexander is retiring --- but still prefers Trump to the Constitution
	Challenger: (D) - ???
Texas	Incumbent: (R) - John Cornyn @JohnCornyn
	Challenger: (D) - MJ Hegar Donate
West Virginia	Incumbent: (R) - Shelley Moore-Capito @SenCapito
	Challenger: (D) - ???
Wyoming	Incumbent: (R) - Michael Enzi @SenatorEnzi	Enzi is retiring --- but still prefers Trump to the Constitution
	Challenger: (D) - ???

I have made donations to all of the challengers listed here.  I urge you to do the same, and let all of these Republican Senators know that the contributions will continue unless they allow to hear witness testimony and conduct a #FairSenateTrial!

Don't Feed the Trolls

We've been through this before, but it seems like a good time for your periodic reminder:

It's about to get really deep out there.  So when wading through social media, remember a few things:

1. Just because someone says they support Bernie (Biden, Warren, Buttigieg, etc.), don't take them at their word.  Especially if they're a non-verified account you don't know.  They could easily be lying to make that candidate (or their supporters) look bad.
2. Aside from their standard dirty tricks (voter suppression, etc.), the primary weapon Trump and his team will use to try to win in 2020 is to divide the opposition.  It worked just well enough in 2016 to get him across the finish line; we CANNOT let them do it again.  So be skeptical of any accounts like this one claiming 'Candidate X is corrupt/dishonest/a drug dealer/whatever'.  And no matter what your personal feelings are about the Democratic candidates who aren't your favorite, NEVER reinforce the Trumpian narrative that they're somehow corrupt!
3. On July 16 next year, the Democrats will select their nominee, and no matter who you personally support, the odds are that it won't be your candidate.  So we all need to be prepared to put our differences aside and fight like hell for 4 months to get that nominee elected, no matter who it turns out to be.

It's bad enough that the Republican noise machine has their own supporters lapping up lies about Democrats.  Don't let them poison the Democratic nomination contest as well.

Buckle In, It's Going to be a Bumpy Ride

I now declare campaign 2020 officially kicked off.  And to start it off right, I'm providing my initial list of candidates to donate money to.

Without question, the two biggest targets for Democrats in 2020 need to be --- no, not Trump, believe it or not --- but the two most powerful Republicans in the Senate, Mitch McConnell and Lindsey Graham.

They have already made a farce out of the eventual impeachment trial of Trump in the Senate, promising a kangaroo court with a predetermined acquittal.  First, here's the current head (laughably) of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Graham:

I am trying to give a pretty clear signal I have made up my mind. I’m not trying to pretend to be a fair juror here.

If a potential juror in a criminal trial anywhere in America said this, he'd be dismissed.  Unfortunately, such brazen devotion to subverting justice to their Dear Leader is par for the course for Republicans these days.  For example, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell makes Graham sound downright ethical:

During an interview with Sean Hannity on Fox News, the Majority Leader said that "everything" he does "during this, I'm coordinating with the White House counsel. There will be no difference between the president's position and our position as to how to handle this, to the extent that we can."

And that's the bad news: the Republican party has given up any pretense that they care about the Constitution, checks and balances, or the rule of law.

The good news is: Both of these bastards are up for re-election in 2020, and they're vulnerable.  A recent poll showed Graham leading his likely Democratic opponent by just 2 points, with only 38% of voters 'definitely' or 'probably' planning to for him.  And while there is currently no independent polling data for McConnell's race, the Democrats just won the Governor's seat in Kentucky, a state Trump won by 30 points in 2016.

So I'm starting out the 2020 cycle by making generous donations to Graham's opponent, Jaime Harrison, and McConnell's opponent, Amy McGrath.  I urge your to do the same, and start setting money aside.  There will be lots of opportunities to influence close races in 2020.

The Electoral College Is All About Unequal Representation

After taking about 2 months off from Twitter, I signed back in this morning to see this:

Red & orange areas have the same population. Imagine if orange elected our president every election & red was completely ignored. Exactly why we need to keep the Electoral College. pic.twitter.com/aiCuItbiVC

— Liz Wheeler (@Liz_Wheeler) July 19, 2019

The cult of Trump never gets tired of arguing that up is down, black is white, and the Electoral College is necessary in the name of fairness.  Their favorite tactic is the one employed here, where they hope that a map with a huge splotch of red on it will make you forget that relatively few voters actually live in that splotch.

In a no doubt vain attempt to debunk their idiocy once and for all, I have calculated what I'm calling the Electoral Power Index (EPI).  It's fairly simple.  I have calculated what the vote of an average voter in each state is worth in the Electoral College simply by dividing the number of electoral votes for that state by the number of voting-age citizens in that state.  Since the result of such a calculation is a really small number, I then multiplied the result by 1 million simply for readability.  Here is how the states rank in the Electoral Power Index (data on voting-age citizens is from the Census Bureau, 2015):

State	Voting-Age Citizens	EV	EPI
Wyoming	434,584	3	6.90
Vermont	494,717	3	6.06
District of Columbia	504,242	3	5.95
Alaska	528,248	3	5.68
North Dakota	571,119	3	5.25
Rhode Island	784,997	4	5.10
South Dakota	634,140	3	4.73
Delaware	697,148	3	4.30
Hawaii	1,022,704	4	3.91
New Hampshire	1,035,684	4	3.86
Maine	1,056,410	4	3.79
Montana	797,198	3	3.76
Nebraska	1,352,947	5	3.70
West Virginia	1,451,557	5	3.44
Idaho	1,168,843	4	3.42
New Mexico	1,470,045	5	3.40
Nevada	1,942,764	6	3.09
Utah	1,945,001	6	3.08
Kansas	2,074,102	6	2.89
Arkansas	2,185,724	6	2.75
Connecticut	2,584,884	7	2.71
Mississippi	2,220,616	6	2.70
Iowa	2,310,467	6	2.59
Minnesota	4,007,159	10	2.50
Oklahoma	2,807,548	7	2.49
Alabama	3,653,381	9	2.46
South Carolina	3,677,799	9	2.45
Kentucky	3,329,835	8	2.40
Oregon	2,956,232	7	2.37
Washington	5,081,800	12	2.36
Maryland	4,239,987	10	2.36
Arizona	4,710,448	11	2.34
Louisiana	3,454,978	8	2.32
Colorado	3,896,986	9	2.31
Wisconsin	4,340,567	10	2.30
New Jersey	6,154,126	14	2.27
Indiana	4,856,797	11	2.26
Tennessee	4,919,574	11	2.24
Massachusetts	4,924,459	11	2.23
Georgia	7,168,068	16	2.23
Illinois	9,017,653	20	2.22
California	25,002,812	55	2.20
Missouri	4,567,771	10	2.19
Texas	17,523,904	38	2.17
Michigan	7,436,478	16	2.15
Virginia	6,062,304	13	2.14
New York	13,704,991	29	2.11
North Carolina	7,296,335	15	2.06
Ohio	8,765,154	18	2.05
Pennsylvania	9,752,322	20	2.05
Florida	14,441,877	29	2.01

This table really illustrates the problem with the Electoral College.  Until someone can explain why the average vote for president in Wyoming should count more than 3 times as much as the average vote for president in Florida, they can't justify supporting it.  You might get a Trumpian to agree that a Wyoming voter should count more than 3 times as much as New York voter, but they'll probably change their tune as soon as you tell them that a D.C. voter counts almost 3 times as much as an Ohio voter.

And if the response is that different geographic regions of the country need increased representation, ask why it is that the vote of a D.C. resident is worth almost three times as much as the vote of her coworker living a quarter-mile away in Virginia, or why crossing the border from New York to Vermont supercharges your vote.

Then ask why we only use such a bizarre, unbalanced system for the highest office in the land, while every other election in America is decided on the principle of one person, one vote.

It's easy to use this table to construct an extreme example of minority rule.  Hypothetically, Satan McAwful could win a bare majority of the vote in the states with the 40 highest EPI scores, while getting 30% of the vote in the remaining states (because party affiliation guarantees any major-party candidate a floor of 30% of the vote, no matter how awful that candidate is).  In this scenario, Satan McAwful would become president while receiving just 39.23% of the popular vote.

And sure, Satan would have won 40 out of 51 states (for Electoral College purposes, D.C. is a state, you sticklers) --- but why does that mean that more than 60% of the country should have to suffer under his rule for the next 4 years?

Democracy!

Does This Really Require Explanation?

Yesterday, I wrote a post forcefully denouncing Bernie Sanders.  I put up the same post, verbatim, in a couple of lefty Facebook groups. That post was removed in one of them, presumably because it was considered divisive.  However, the moderator who removed it suggested that it would be good for me to provide some explanation as to why I was denouncing Sanders, and so I shall.

Yesterday, in an interview on MSNBC, Sanders was asked whether he would drop out of the race before the convention if it became clear that he would not be the nominee.  When pressed, he said this:

Some people say that if maybe that system was not rigged against me I would have won the nomination and defeated Donald Trump

I feel like I shouldn't have to explain why this is 100% unacceptable, but I will.  Sanders has had 4 years to come up with a better answer to this question, which is, after all, a fairly standard question to ask candidates during the primaries.  I came up with a better answer in under four minutes.  He could have said, for example:

I intend to fully support the Democractic nominee for president.  It's crucial that anyone who cares about our democracy, the rule of law, freedom of the press and the Constitution supports the Democratic nominee in defeating Donald Trump, and I intend to be that nominee

Something like that probably would have been his best answer.  My second choice would have been literally any other answer which doesn't reinforce and validate GOP attacks that the Democratic party is in some way corrupt.  Even if he's referencing the 2016 race, there is NO REASON to use the word 'rigged' when discussing the nomination process, ESPECIALLY on the very day that the nominating process officially begins.

So I rather forcefully expressed my opinion that I have no intention of supporting Sanders for the nomination.  And in my opinion, no one who's interested in defeating Trump SHOULD support Sanders, considering that Sanders is doing Trump's work for him.

There are PLENTY of other candidates to choose from, all of them younger, most of them as good (or better!) than Sanders on the issues, and none of whom would repeat GOP attacks on the Democratic party, because they're actually Democrats.

I really feel like this should be obvious to an objective observer, especially someone concerned about divisiveness.

NOTE: There is an important coda to all of this, and it's the main reason I took the time to post this at all.  And it is that although Sanders is now my 23rd choice for Democratic nominee, I promise to enthusiastically campaign for him in the event he wins the nomination!  I say this because I promise to enthusiastically campaign for the Democratic nominee no matter who it is!

The importance of this promise should also be obvious to any objective observer, and is something I hope all of Trump's opponents agree on.

Bernie Sanders is a Whiny Crybaby

Just letting folks know that as of now, I am officially on team 'Anyone But Bernie' for the Dem nomination in 2020. Seriously, fuck that guy.