Sex, Russia and Impeachment
>
 |
| Individual One by Nancy Ohanian |
New York, America's largest city is abuzz over the latest revelations about Donald Trump's crimes. I'm here on book tour discussing Iran, but audiences want to know if Trump will be impeached.
Court documents filed in the case of Trump's long-time personal lawyer Michael Cohen show The Donald paid off two women with whom he had sexual relations. Prosecutors consider the payments, totaling several hundred thousand dollars, to be illegal campaign contributions because they were explicitly used to prevent scandal during the 2016 presidential race.
Top Democratic Party leaders admit those payments constitute impeachable offenses, but have so far not called for impeachment. Rep. Jerrold Nadler (Dem-NY), who will head the House Judiciary Committee in January, has become the master of equivocation.
"Well, they would be impeachable offenses," he told CNN. "Whether they are important enough to justify an impeachment is a different question."
Case for impeachment
In my opinion, Trump is guilty of a number of high crimes and misdemeanors. He has escalated the undeclared wars in Syria and Yemen. He obstructed justice by firing FBI Director James Comey and lied about meetings his advisors had with Russians.
"Trump has been violating these clauses since his first day as president," Solomon told me.
I think pursuing impeachment is one legitimate tactic by what is emerging as a broad anti-Trump movement. For now, the Republican-dominated Senate is not likely to convict Trump. By voting for impeachment in the House, but losing in the Senate, the Democrats could end up strengthening Trump. But new evidence may yet emerge. And even a House vote to impeach would force Trump to focus on defending himself, and potentially reduce his ability to wreak havoc on the government.
Last year 58 members of the House voted to debate impeachment. Democrats now hold a majority and the party base remains very angry at Trump's corruption and despotism. The House could start impeachment hearings at anytime and enjoy considerable popular support.
Russia Connection?
You noticed that I didn't mention Trump's collusion/conspiracy with Putin as one of the impeachable offenses. I think liberals have overplayed that connection, and it's likely to backfire.
To date, there's no evidence that Trump cooperated with Russia to illegally influence the 2016 elections or adopt pro-Russian policies as a quid pro quo for favorable business dealings.
Yes, the Russians spent a few hundred thousand dollars to set up fake social media sites to attack Hillary Clinton and support Trump. But, despite the liberal outcry, it had relatively small impact.
Trump won by less than 80,000 votes in three key states. The Democrats lost because Trump appealed to alienated white voters and the Clinton campaign tilted right rather than mobilizing new voters with a progressive program.
Yes, high level Trump officials met with Russians in hopes of getting dirt on Clinton. And Trump’s campaign advocated easing Russian sanctions and establishing better relations with Putin.
But those activities are just as easily explained as political maneuvers rather than conspiracies. Trump was looking for whatever support he could get. During the campaign he sometimes professed an isolationist foreign policy that included improving relations with Russia. For their part, Russian leaders hoped for an end to Hillary Clinton's liberal interventionism.
If Putin and Trump had a secret deal, why did Trump immediately appoint ultra-conservative interventionists to key cabinet posts, who then cranked up hostility with Russia?
For too many Democrats, Putin bashing also serves a convenient political purpose, according to Alan MacLeod, a researcher at Glasgow Media Group.
"If Russia is to blame, there is no need for introspection, nor to cede political ground to progressives," he told me. "Instead it can be business as usual. There is no need to change policies, reflect upon a poorly run campaign, … or to understand why their policies failed to inspire the American public."
Attacking Trump from the right
Insisting on a Putin-Trump conspiracy also promotes Russia as a dangerous enemy, and allows Democrats to attack Trump from the right on national security issues.
Nancy Pelosi, who will become speaker of the House, summed up the mainstream Democratic Party view succinctly earlier this year.
“It seems that Putin is Trump’s puppeteer," she said.
The new Russian boogie man not only challenges the United States in eastern Europe and the Middle East, it threatens our democratic elections! according to leading liberals.
Earlier this year Rep. Nadler and other Democratic House leaders called for increased sanctions against Russia. Nadler proclaimed, “If we do not take any action, the American people may not trust the outcome of the next election."
As it turns out, Russian midterm election interference never materialized.
In reality Russia is a lesser imperialist power compared to the United States, or even Britain and France. It seeks hegemony in a limited number of places, such as the former USSR and Eastern Europe, and more recently, in parts of the Middle East. Putin heads an authoritarian government that oppresses the Russian people. But Russia is no more threat to the people of United States than any other lesser imperialist power. We face far greater threats from the neocons currently occupying the White House.
I view Russian interference in US elections the same way I see its espionage. Both countries carry out illegal spying on one another. Occasionally a spy is caught. One side self righteously denounces the other, but no one believes espionage will topple either government.
A recent Gallup poll showed that 58% of the American people favor improving relations with Russia while only 38% want more sanctions. So in both factual and practical terms, the Democrats should stop braying about the Trump-Putin conspiracy and focus on the White House's real crimes.
Labels: impeaching Trump, Norman Solomon, Putin-Gate, Reese Erlich
posted by DownWithTyranny @ 5:00 PM
4 comments
|
Reddit
4 Comments:
I am going to continue to expect that nothing will be done to Trump. That way, if he is impeached and/or indicted, the surprise will be pleasant and not a disappointment.
The Russia conspiracy will do Trump in in the end. Anyone who thinks this is not the case is being way too pessimistic. All along, the media has been showing the American people the evidence but until indictments and law suits actually surface and until Mueller puts the facts on the table nothing is being done and Trump is still sitting there in the Oval Office.
Undoubtedly, Mueller is finding slam dunk proof of the various Russian conspiracies with the Trump campaign, the Republicans, the NRA and who knows what else to help Trump win the election. (And what was Jill Stein doing at the RT event in Moscow, sitting at a table near Putin? Thus far, she has gotten away with that being looked into. Surely Putin was co-opting her, too, to take votes away from Hillary. She stinks to high hell. Sorry, but you got hoodwinked, you Stein voters.) Putin spared no potential approach to interfere with our election.
As Michael Cohen recently said about the Trump Organization, nothing gets done without Trump's explicit approval. He views himself as an omnipotent KING; he is a control freak. All of those campaign officials conversing with the Russians was OF COURSE overseen, directed and okayed by Trump. He was running the whole enterprise. Flynn was doing his bidding with the sanctions. Putin has very likely given Butina the green light to tell all, as her efforts will clearly show how effective Putin was. Putin has semi destroyed our country so he is fine with it all being revealed. He is laughing at us, the smug P.O.S. He is fine with cutting Trump loose now, as Trump has already served his purpose of pushing our democracy towards a cliff. What remains to be seen is whether we actually go off the cliff in free fall. Putin despises Trump, just like the rest of us. Trump has been a stupid fool played by Putin.
The "Russia thing" is what may well force the Republicans' hand with impeachment, as the findings will be over the top and incontrovertible. I do think Nancy will have the House impeach him but she is one smart cookie and will bide her time waiting for Mueller.
When Mueller has all of the FACTS and connects all of the dots and it is in the Public's eye (one would hope), TRUMP WILL NOT GET AWAY WITH IT. Says me. Ha ha! Otherwise, we are finished so let's hope I am right.
Hone, coupla things:
if you voted for $hillbillary, you got hoodwinked far worse than I did... *IF* I did. And you shoulda known better.
For any of this to "do trump in", someone with enforcement power will have to act. Just who do you imagine that will be? *HIS* DOJ? Pelosi? senate Nazis?
the Nazi supremes are all poised to hear an appeal so they can declare, as kkkavanaugh already has, that a sitting fuhrer is immune to indictment.
Also unchallenged so far is whether trump can pre-emptively pardon himself, which he'll likely do if he thinks he's in for indictments after he leaves.
I'd be quite interested, dear Hone, in your answers. You made a claim. Support it.
@Hone:
"All along, the media has been showing the American people the evidence but until indictments and law suits actually surface and until Mueller puts the facts on the table nothing is being done and Trump is still sitting there in the Oval Office."
Excuse me, but can you provide me with a link to the evidence the media has been showing? I've seen some evidence presented that various criminal acts have been committed, but so far there really has hot been any evidence presented showing a conspiracy to interfere with the election. Mueller may have such evidence, but he hasn't shown any of it yet. The indictment he entered in February is not evidence. It is the prosecution's theory. I understand that prosecutors to not show their evidence until the trial, but let me repeat -- an indictment is not proof that the accused is guilty of a crime, and specifically does not prove the accused is guilty of the crime named in the indictment. In fact he's in trouble now because one of the parties named in the indictment, Concord Management, actually sent attorneys to plead "not guilty" at the arraignment and since then the DoJ prosecutors have been desperately trying to avoid discovery. They claim their evidence would compromise ongoing investigations. If so they should not have publicized the indictment. The judge asked them who all the Russian language ads were supposed to have influenced.
Post a Comment
<< Home