Patriotic civil servants realized what Donald Trump was trying to do and were aghast!

The facts are only going to get worse for Donald Trump

By Eugene Robinson - echo opinion published in ArcaMax

"Trump has groused that his allies should instead be defending him on substance. But how can they?"

WASHINGTON, DC -- Republicans said they wanted process, so now they have it. The question is whether President Trump's defenders are willing, finally, to address the substance of the allegations against him.

Thursday's historic vote by the House set out procedures for the inquiry into Trump's conduct that give the president every opportunity to defend himself. Before and after the vote, GOP leaders complained that Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., was running a "Soviet-style" impeachment process, which must be one of the dumbest things ever said on the House floor. The old Soviet Union didn't do impeachments, with accusation by one legislative chamber, judgment by the other, the nation's highest judicial officer presiding and the ultimate sanction being removal from office. It did purges, followed by a one-way trip to the gulag.

It sounded as if Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., and his colleagues were grasping at the wispiest of straws, and they were. Odds are that they will continue to do so as long as they can. Meanwhile, however, the process they clamored for will roll on and gather momentum, with or without them.

Trump has groused that his allies should instead be defending him on substance. But how can they? His phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky was "perfect" only as an illustration of impeachable behavior. And we know that what Trump called a "word-for-word" transcript of the call omitted key elements of the call, according to one witness. How can anyone defend the president without knowing what's missing?

Did Donald Trump try to extort President Volodymyr Zelensky into investigating Vice President Joe Biden? (The New Yorker report by John Cassidy)

Moreover, the phone call was just part of a much larger scheme. The evidence that has surfaced thus far indicates that Trump orchestrated a mob-style shakedown, withholding nearly $400 million in military aid and a promised White House meeting in an attempt to coerce Zelensky into investigating -- and publicly smearing -- Biden and his son Hunter. The play-ball-with-us message was apparently delivered not just by Donald Trump himself but also by various emissaries. At the time, Joe Biden was shown by polls to be Trump's most formidable potential Democratic opponent in November 2020.

In other words, Trump was actively and personally colluding with a foreign government to interfere in our coming presidential election. No wonder Republicans prefer to pound the table about process.

Soon the depositions that the House Intelligence Committee has been taking behind closed doors will be made public. What we have learned of them so far is heartening. Patriotic civil servants realized what Trump was trying to do and were aghast. They saw him putting personal political interests ahead of the national security interests he had sworn an oath to protect, and they tried their best to do the right thing within the chain of command.

Ambassador William Taylor, named envoy to Ukraine by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, kept copious notes and was able to produce a detailed timeline of events. He also made sure that his qualms and objections were recorded in text messages, which he surely knew would someday come to light. These are not the actions of some "spy" from the mythical "deep state." These are the actions of a dedicated and experienced diplomat who loves his country.

Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, a decorated Iraq War veteran who works at the National Security Council as an expert on Ukraine, was assigned to listen in on Trump's phone call with Velensky -- and was so horrified he reported the president's extortion attempt to a top National Security Council lawyer. The lawyer's reaction was to make sure that the rough transcript of the call was buried in a super-secret computer system usually reserved for the most highly classified information, such as ongoing covert operations.

For recognizing the difference between right and wrong, and for volunteering to appear before the House Intelligence Committee despite almost certainly being pressured by his bosses at the White House not to do so, Vindman has had his patriotism impugned. I wonder how many of his spineless Republican critics were awarded the Purple Heart after being injured by a bomb in Iraq.

More witnesses are coming out of the woodwork. When the public hearings begin, Trump's defenders will have to decide what tack to take. Keep harping on process? Taking the route of character assassination? Pulling more sophomoric stunts to disrupt the proceedings?

However Republicans choose to proceed, there's one thing they must realize, even if they are afraid to say it out loud: The facts are only going to get worse for the president. If they can't bring themselves to defend Trump on the merits, they're going to have to explain why not. Process is now just a dodge.

Donald Trump is re-enacting the treasonous behavior described in the Robert Mueller investigation

Republicans who have been too quick to claim that the Robert Mueller report somehow and falsely vindicated the stupid Donald Trump from having colluded with the Russians to illegally claim to be potus.....well, Donald Trump has now made his own case for "guilty!".

The GOP's boot-licking cowardice knows no bounds

By Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson  echo published in the on line forum ArcaMax

WASHINGTON, DC -- Donald Trump's defense against impeachment is bombastic, full of lies and incoherent to the point of lunacy, which is no surprise. Republicans are be-clowning themselves to pretend Trump is making sense -- and that, sadly, is also no surprise.

Trump has described his smoking-gun phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky as "perfect," which is only true from the point of view of the prosecutors in his impeachment trial, if it comes to that. 

Trump's lawyer has claimed that Zelensky was the first to mention Joe and Hunter Biden, while the rough transcript of the call clearly shows that it was Trump who did so. He has demanded that the whistle blower be unmasked and claimed that he or she somehow misrepresented the call, hoping no one will notice that the allegations in the whistle blower's complaint have been confirmed by documents and statements released by the White House.

Trump has accused House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., and Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., of "treason" and demanded that they be impeached. After first refusing to say whether he wanted Ukraine to investigate the Bidens, he admitted it and called on China to investigate them, too. And as for Sen. Mitt Romney, R-Utah -- who said that Trump's call with Zelensky was "troubling in the extreme" and that his requests to Ukraine and China were "wrong and appalling" -- Trump has called him a "pompous 'ass'" and wants him impeached, too.

(Maine Writer- In other words, Donald Trump is certifiably crazy!) 

Senator Romney, however, is the only prominent GOP officeholder thus far to call out Trump for the (crazy!) conduct that will likely get him impeached. Senators. Susan Collins, R-Maine, and Ben Sasse, R-Neb., have been critical of the China appeal but have said nothing about Ukraine. The boot-licking cowardice of today's Republican Party knows no bounds.

Perhaps none have embarrassed themselves more than Senator Ron Johnson, R-Wisc., who had a rough time Sunday on "Meet the Press." Host Chuck Todd asked him about a quote of his that had appeared in The Wall Street Journal. When Johnson heard that $391 million in military aid for Ukraine might be being withheld to coerce an investigation into the Bidens, Johnson told the Journal, "I winced. My reaction was, 'Oh God. I don't want to see those two things combined.'"

There it is, the quid pro quo. But Johnson was apparently determined not to be seen as having criticized Trump, lest he become the target of a Trump tweet-storm. So he launched into a diatribe about how Trump's presidency had been "sabotaged" and given "no measure of honeymoon whatsoever" and then dove into fantasy-based conspiracy theories about the origin of the Mueller investigation. After a long struggle by Todd to return to the subject of Ukraine, Johnson finally said: "When I asked the president about that, he completely denied it. He adamantly denied it. He vehemently, angrily denied it. He said, "I'd never do that." So that is the piece of the puzzle I'm here to report today."

Runner-up for some sort of Profiles in Spinelessness award is Senator Marco Rubio, R-Fla., who said that when Trump stood on the White House lawn and called on the despotic Chinese government, with its kangaroo-court justice system, to investigate a former U.S vice president and his family, he was just kidding around to get a rise out of the media.

Look at the videotape. What I see is a desperate president trying to convince the public that his attempted shakedown of Ukraine was so innocent, so unimpeachable, that he's willing to do the same thing to China openly. Then again, it might have been slam-dunk evidence for another article of impeachment. Either way, Trump's performance looked and sounded nothing like fun and games with the White House press corps.

At this point, we can dispense with the notion that Trump welcomes impeachment because he believes it gives him a political advantage. He reportedly told House Republicans that being impeached would be "a bad thing to have on your resume." His tweets and harangues betray what seems to be a visceral horror of being hauled into the dock and put on trial, even if he believes that ultimately he will not be removed from office. In his long life of privilege, Trump has rarely been held accountable for his bad behavior. He seems not to enjoy the experience.

For now, Trump can cling to the fact that lily-livered Republicans still fear his wrath. They're looking at the polls, though, and hearing from their constituents. It is certainly true that brute-force intimidation can compel obedience -- but it rarely generates true loyalty.

P.S. Maine Writer wants to know if Robert Mueller can write an appendage to his 448 page report?

Stop government shutdowns: witness Trump in defeat

Although I have little confidence in Donald Trump's ability to understand the meaning of the word "cave" now trending in dictionary searches, the fact is, this horrible episode in American history should never have happened.  Donald Trump created his own defeat on the border wall.  Even if he should somehow resurrect some part of a structure that he can point to as being "the wall that Mexico would pay for" (but didn't!), he brought Americans to the brink of a civic revolution, by claiming to own the shutdown. Never again should this tortuous hostage taking of American citizens, used as bargaining chips in a government shutdown, for political purposes, be allowed to happen! Donald Trump was defeated during his January 25, 2019, White House hate speech, but he should never have allowed himself to be boxed in by racism, against immigrants, put into effect by right wing extremists (RWE-RWEs), like Ann Colture.

There's nothing 'moderate' about caving in to Trump

E.J. Dionne Jr. on Jan 24, 2019 published in ArcaMax

WASHINGTON, DC-- This must be the last shutdown, ever. No politicians should be able to wreck government and inflict suffering on its employees as a form of brute force to get their way.

An E.J. Dionne echo opinion 

Any deal to end this nonsense must therefore include a measure akin to the no-more-shutdowns proposal from Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va., disarming those who so disrespect government that they're willing to throw the country into chaos.

It also means that continuing to resist President Trump's intransigence is not a radical position. It is the moderate position.

There is longing for "moderates" of one kind or another to come up with a solution to this crisis. Yet what's more moderate than saying that everything related to border security should be on the table for negotiation, but in a considered, thoughtful way? A border wall should not be privileged just because we have a president obsessed with symbols that rally his base.

And, by the way, that base is shrinking, as a CBS News poll released on Wednesday showed.

The pollsters asked: "Do you think the issue of a border wall is worth the federal government shutdown or not?" Overall, 71 percent of Americans said that the border wall is not worth the shutdown, including 92 percent of Democrats, 71 percent of independents and 43 percent of Republicans. GOP senators facing Thursday's scheduled votes on competing proposals -- with and without Trump's $5.7 billion in wall money -- should note that this fight is uniting Democrats and dividing their own party. 

Let's be clear: Trump's opponents are not refusing to negotiate. In fact, House Democrats said on Wednesday that they're willing to offer additional money for border security, though not for the wall.

As Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., said Tuesday in an interview with NPR's Rachel Martin: "Democrats -- I certainly am, and my colleagues are, too -- are glad to have the discussion about the elements in the president's proposal." All they are asking, he said, is to "treat it like every other item of business we have, rather than a take-it-or-leave-it."

In other words, don't let Trump use a shutdown to override the normal process of governing. "[Republicans are] saying people's lives are the leverage they want to use, and we want to discredit the use of government shutdown as a negotiating tactic," Kaine told Martin. "Why take paychecks away from FBI agents? Why shutter food-stamp offices because the president's not getting his way on border security?"

Why, indeed?

Let's be clear: Trump's opponents are not refusing to negotiate. In fact, House Democrats said on Wednesday that they're willing to offer additional money for border security, though not for the wall.

As Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., said Tuesday in an interview with NPR's Rachel Martin: "Democrats -- I certainly am, and my colleagues are, too -- are glad to have the discussion about the elements in the president's proposal." All they are asking, he said, is to "treat it like every other item of business we have, rather than a take-it-or-leave-it."

In other words, don't let Trump use a shutdown to override the normal process of governing. "[Republicans are] saying people's lives are the leverage they want to use, and we want to discredit the use of government shutdown as a negotiating tactic," Kaine told Martin. "Why take paychecks away from FBI agents? Why shutter food-stamp offices because the president's not getting his way on border security?"

Why, indeed?

And Trump has shown that negotiating with him is a fool's errand. His proposal last Saturday was presented as a "compromise." It was no such thing. His "concession" to legalize -- temporarily -- the status of some 700,000 immigrants brought across our borders when they were children essentially ratifies the status quo forced on Trump by lower-court decisions that the Supreme Court left in place on Tuesday.

His supposed step toward more openness for asylum seekers turned out to be exactly the opposite, once its more stringent provisions were made clear. Trump's approach to negotiating is: Give me what I want, and if you don't, I'll ask for even more.

This is lunacy. It has to stop, which is why Warner's end-shutdowns bill is so important. As The Washington Post's Aaron Blake summarized it: "In the event of a lapse in government funding, the act would reinstate funding levels from the previous fiscal year -- except for Congress and the office of the president, which would not receive funding until they reached an agreement."

Warner calls his bill the "Stop STUPIDITY Act," standing for "Shutdowns Transferring Unnecessary Pain and Inflicting Damage in the Coming Years."

Trump wants rational people to be so horrified at the damage he's willing to inflict that they'll cave in. It's his M.O., as Damian Paletta and Josh Dawsey noted in The Post: "He creates -- or threatens to create -- a calamity, and then insists he will address the problem only if his adversary capitulates to a separate demand."

Giving in to such behavior is not moderate, reasonable, or sensible.

Steve King of Iowa ignores the Republican roots as the anti slavery party

My question is this.  If Republicans are suddenly shocked by the racist language spewed by Steve King of Iowa, then why are they not equally outraged by Donald Trump's bigotry!

",,,stop letting bigots like King and Trump define the (Republican) party's policies..."

A Eugene Robinson column published in ArcaMax

Why are Republicans suddenly outraged over King's racism?
By Eugene Robinson 

WASHINGTON -- Republicans are shocked, shocked, to learn that Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, is a dyed-in-the-wool racist. Also that snow is cold, the ocean is wet and the sky is often blue.

The clamor of GOP voices denouncing King's latest racist eruption is more amusing than inspiring. Where have his Republican colleagues been all these years? Surely the "party of Lincoln" is aware that race has been the most divisive issue in our national history. Surely Republicans were aware of King's toxic views, which he makes no attempt to hide. Why such an uproar now?

Perhaps King's newly outraged critics were waiting for him to finally spell it out in language that even the "party of Trump" cannot ignore. Which he did.

In a New York Times profile last week, King expounded on his hardline anti-immigrant views, which are the only thing that has distinguished him, or undistinguished him, in an otherwise mediocre congressional career. He boasted of having once told President Trump that "I market-tested your immigration policy for 14 years, and that ought to be worth something."

In what might have been an unguarded moment, King told the Times: "White nationalist, white supremacist, Western civilization -- how did that language become offensive? Why did I sit in classes teaching me about the merits of our history and our civilization?"

We have seen, in subsequent days, that the open embrace of white supremacy is a bridge too far for many Republicans. That's what they say, at least. I'll believe them when they make clear -- with actions, not just words -- that racists like King are unwelcome in the party's ranks.

After the Times piece was published, King quickly issued a statement seeking to distance himself from white nationalism and white supremacy, claiming to "reject those labels and the evil ideology they define." But then he went on to defend that very ideology in the euphemistic language -- word salad about nationalism and Western "values" -- that white supremacists use in polite company.

King claims his crusade is about keeping out the wrong kind of values. But his rhetoric and his associations make clear that his real aim is keeping out the "wrong" kind of people -- Latinos, Muslims, anyone who doesn't fit into his warped, anti-historical, racist vision of the nation's heritage.

Several years ago, referring to the undocumented "Dreamers" brought here as minors, King had this to say: 

"For every one who's a valedictorian, there's another hundred out there who weigh 130 pounds and they've got calves the size of cantaloupes because they're hauling 75 pounds of marijuana across the desert." That's what King thinks of Hispanic immigration. He proposed a border wall before Trump did.

As the Times noted in its profile, King has supported political figures abroad who have anti-Semitic leanings and neo-Nazi ties. 

In his response statement, King said he condemns anyone who supports the ideology that led to the Holocaust. So that's something. In years past, however, he did display a Confederate flag in his office -- an odd and telling choice of decor for a man born and raised in Iowa, where the trees are not draped with Spanish moss and the atmosphere is not suffused with "Lost Cause" nostalgia.

Here is part of what King said last year to a right-wing Austrian website: "When I made a statement on Twitter saying, 'We can't restore our civilization with somebody else's babies,' it seemed to be more irritating to the left than anything I have ever said. 

First of all, the total fertility rate in Europe is below replacement rate. When that happens, you are a dying civilization. ... If we continue to abort our babies and import a replacement for them in the form of young violent men, we are supplanting our culture, our civilization." The weird idea of "replacement" is a cornerstone of white supremacist ideology.

Following the Times profile, we've heard stirring denunciations from outraged and embarrassed Republicans. On "Meet the Press," Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Tex., was righteously eloquent on the subject. In a Washington Post op-ed, Sen. Tim Scott, R-S.C., challenged his colleagues: "Some in our party wonder why Republicans are constantly accused of racism -- it is because of our silence when things like this are said." On "Face the Nation," House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., promised that "action will be taken" against King.

Yeah, sure, whatever. You don't want to be called racists, Republicans? Then stop letting bigots like King and Trump define the party's policies. I'll believe stirring GOP words about diversity when they are backed up by votes.
========
Eugene Robinson's email address is eugenerobinson@washpost.com.