America is now fully warned about Donald Trump and "tRumpzism!"

An echo opinion published in the February 17 & 25 The New Yorker magazine by Professor Steve Coll.

On January 23, 2017, Donald Trump’s fourth day as President, he met with congressional leaders in the State Dining Room of the White House. “You know, I won the popular vote,” he started off, and then repeated the calumny that Hillary Clinton had received three to five million illegal votes, owing to fraud. “That’s not true,” Nancy Pelosi replied, according to “A Very Stable Genius,” the recently published account of the Trump Presidency by the Washington Post reporters Philip Rucker and Carol Leonnig. “If we’re going to work together,” Pelosi said, “we have to stipulate to a certain set of facts.” Steve Bannon* (barf!), then Trump’s chief strategist, who was in the room, whispered to colleagues, “She’s going to get us. Total assassin.”

*Steve Bannon was obviously passed over for promotion by the U.S. Navy, even though he was a graduate of the USNA in Annapolis. In other words, he failed as a commissioned officer and was forced to leave the Navy. Moreover, Bannon is a failed creature who falsely claims a human genome.

Pelosi became one of Trump’s most unflinching adversaries, in part because she grasped early on that invitations to his White House are often just call sheets for unscripted television; her finger-jabbing readiness to get in Trump’s face has made her a recurring meme of the Democratic resistance. She offered her most vivid performance yet on February 4th, during the President’s third State of the Union address. As Trump spoke, Pelosi, wearing suffragist white, sat behind him in the high-backed chair reserved for the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and conspicuously shuffled and reshuffled a printed copy of the President’s speech. After he finished, she tore the text in half. Twitter blew up, as the Speaker had clearly intended; she explained that she had abandoned decorum because Trump’s speech “was a manifesto of mistruths.”

Hashtag wars are the President’s terrain, however; the conflict between Pelosi and Trump matters most for what it says about the questionable health of the Constitution’s system of checks and balances. After the 2018 midterm elections, when Democrats regained control of the House but not the Senate, Pelosi, who will turn eighty in March, was elected House Speaker, overcoming opposition from progressive and younger representatives by promising to relinquish her post by 2022. Last year, as the Mueller investigation wound down, Pelosi resisted calls from many Democrats to launch an impeachment inquiry. She argued that the idea lacked public support, even as the Mueller report turned out to be damning, particularly in its litany of examples of likely obstruction of justice. Pelosi’s judg­ment seemed to be grounded in political real­ism: even if the President were impeached, the chances remained slim to vanishing that the Republican-controlled Senate—cowed by Trump’s base and by allied demagogues on the airwaves—would convict and remove him from office by the necessary two-thirds vote. Why impeach Trump if he could describe an acquittal as vindication, using it to denounce his enemies and to rally his following?

Last September, after the Ukraine matter broke, Pelosi concluded—at the urging of both progressives and centrists in her House caucus—that this time the evidence was different. Trump’s abuse of U.S. military aid and economic power to coerce Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden, she said, had crossed a line from “bad behavior” to presenting “a challenge to our Constitution.” The House hearings that followed, despite a hurried schedule and White House obstruction, created a convincing record of Trump’s blithe disregard of a President’s duty to place the national interest before his own. For all its political risks, Pelosi told the Times early this month, the impeachment investigation succeeded, because it “pulled back a veil of behavior totally unacceptable to our founders. . . . The public will see this with a clearer eye, an unblurred eye.” She implied that such clarity would shape the judgment of voters in November, but she also seemed to acknowledge uncertainty about the coming election: “Whatever happens, he has been impeached forever.”

When the Senate exonerated Trump, this week, following his brief and witness-free impeachment trial, the most striking reminder of the constitutional issues at stake was provided by Mitt Romney, the Republican Presidential nominee in 2012, as he joined a united Democratic caucus to vote for Trump’s conviction on the article charging abuse of power. In eloquent remarks, he described the President’s conduct as “a flagrant assault on our electoral rights, our national security, and our fundamental values.” He went on, “Corrupting an election to keep oneself in office is perhaps the most abusive and destructive violation of one’s oath of office that I can imagine.”

Whether Trump will nonetheless become the first President in U.S. history to be impeached and then reëlected remains a matter of mortal dread among many Democrats. For a President presiding over a growing economy and low unemployment, Trump’s disapproval ratings remain high, but incumbents with not much better numbers have gone on to win a second term. His followers still camp out overnight to gain admission to his rallies. Given the widespread animus toward the President in big blue states like California and New York, it seems doubtful that he can win the popular vote in November, yet recent state polls show that he has a plausible path to an Electoral College victory, similar to the one he constructed in 2016. Democratic voters seem motivated to defeat Trump above all other goals, yet they must first navigate a Presidential nominating contest in which there is no decisive front-runner and plenty of potential for divisiveness.

In “A Very Stable Genius,” Rucker and Leonnig provide an arresting narrative of how Trump has come to operate with far fewer constraints and much greater conviction about the soundness of his own instincts. The President’s ignorance can be staggering. (On a tour of the U.S.S. Arizona Memorial, he made clear to his chief of staff at the time, John Kelly, that he did not know what had happened at Pearl Harbor.) But the book’s most frightening scenes document Trump’s indifference to the rule of law, compounded, in some cases, by his reliance on right-wing television personalities for ideas. In 2018, he grew deeply frustrated with then Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen, because she ignored border-security proposals floated by the Fox Business host Lou Dobbs; she had concluded that the proposals were infeasible or illegal. When Trump insisted that Nielsen act as he wanted, she told him, “Federal law enforcement doesn’t work like that. . . . These people have taken an oath to uphold the law. Do you really want to tell them to do the opposite?” According to Rucker and Leonnig, Trump answered, “Then we’ll pardon them.” 

By now, any dispassionate reading of the Mueller report, the impeachment investigation, and the accumulating record of journalism can lead to but one conclusion: we have been warned. 

Steve Coll, is a staff writer for The New Yorker and the dean of the Graduate School of Journalism at Columbia University.

Echo from Miami ~ Vote Republicans out of office!

We must do better! ~ excerpts from a letter to the editor published in The Miami Herald.

In order to restore Congress’ responsibilities as an equal branch of the people’s government, Democrats need to end Congressional Republicans’ refusal to perform their duties.

In the history of our nation, there has never been a more dire need for the checks and balances that make our Constitution so enduring.

Democrats must rise above; we must be the better angels of the American conscience, and that means a commitment to honestly discussing and openly debating the unprecedented challenges we face.

We can make the 2018 elections so much more than a referendum on our sociopathic leader Donald Trump — we can make the elections an example of the high ideals and free principles that can restore our nation’s dignity.

We must Vote Blue in 2018! We can do better. 

From Joe Arriola, Miami

Tax money to sue President of the United States must be made Consitutioally illegal

Do the lawyers who are paid huge money to sue President Obama on behalf of Speaker Boehner understand the purpose of the government's system of "checks and balances"?  A lawsuit undermines this Constitutional system.

Moreover, are tax dollars being used to pay for a challenge to executive authority?

I can't understand how Americans, regardless of their personal political affiliations, can approve of having hard earned tax money used to sue the President of the United States.  

Speaker of the House John Boehner (R) is unhappy with President Obama. What's new? Therefore, Boehner should use his personal resources to launch a liability claim, rather thann waste tax dollars on a frivolous lawsuit.

Unfortunately, Boehner found somebody with enough money to throw at a lawyer who's willing to take on the responsibility of launching a lawsuit against President Obama.  

Meanwhile, it makes no sense to sue the president, because the actions on the claims won't be determined until 2016, when Mr. Obama's term as President is complete. Even more ridiculous is the precedence Speaker Boehner sets for future presidents. Surely Americans realize how Boehner's litigious  actions will open this avenue of reproach for future presidents, thereby incapacitating our system of checks and balances.  

If Speaker Boehner wants to take legal action against President Obama he should take one of two actions: (a) initiate impeachment, but on what grounds?; or (b) pay for a lawsuit with his own money.

If each of the US government's three branches of government have equal authority to push back on the other two, then President Obama has the authority to provide an executive order when the legislative branch is incapable of taking action. 

Nevertheless, the Republicans finally found an attorney willing to accept the money needed to launch a challenge to American's long standing Constitutional system of checks and balances.  

House Republicans have hired their third attorney since August to pursue their lawsuit against President Barack Obama for allegedly overstepping his authority, tapping George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley, according to House Speaker John Boehner’s office. (Who is paying Turley?)

A Boehner law suit puts executive Constitutional authority at risk. Boehner's outrageous action will undoubtedly be turfed to the third branch of government, the judicial branch. Court action to support the lawsuit,, or not, must be applied to all future Presidents.  

When the Legislative branch is allowed to sue the Executive branch, the system of checks and balances will be undermined.  

In other words, the President of the United States will be incapacitated.  

Veto will be the only power allowed and this will take a simple 2/3 vote to override.  Otherwise, Presidents will be unable to act.  

To the American voter, the Republicans must be put out of office. These ambitious group of right wing politicians are determined to undermine the US Constitution so they can rule like dictators.

Unfortunately, Americans haven't seen through the GOP political smoke and mirrors, whereby Republicans use fear to mask their nefarious political power ambitions.  

Nevertheless, Republicans like Speaker Boehner and his lock step followers should not be allowed to use American tax money to sue President Obama.  I want to know how Boehner will pay the expenses for Jonathan Turley? Not with my tax money!!

Unelected Power - Godfathers Norquist and Koch Brothers

Some Americans were once upset when President Bill Clinton asked his wife Hilary to lead a campaign in support of badly needed health care reform, because she didn't hold an elected office. 

Constitution constructionists even threw around the founding fathers' concept of the balance of power.  How could the office of First Lady of the US be covered in the process of Constitutional checks and balances?  

But, today, filthy rich people, who don't want to pay taxes, are exerting undue influence over politicians, and the electorate without incurring outrage about the unconstitutionality of what they're up to.

Where's the outrage about unelected Grover Norquist and the Koch Brothers, who wield unknown amounts of political power with money? They're examples of unelected rich people who control our country, like political Godfathers over America's elected officials. 

Norquist gives philanthropy a bad name. His money influences right wing politics, especially, in what should be illegal campaigns, to have elected officials in Congress sign pledges against raising taxes.  But, it's the job of Congress to evaluate the nation's revenues versus our expenses.  Norquist is on a quest to control Congress. His unelected power is nothing more than bribes, used to control legislation in his own best interest. In other words, since he's rich, he wants to be sure his income isn't taxed, so he can stay that way, along with his friends.

Who suffers when Congress is blackmailed by Norquist?  It's the middle class who suffers, because, rather than raise taxes on the rich, the austerity falls on program cuts to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid assistance to poor, and disabled people, and their children, food stamps and Veterans benefits.

Norquist doesn't care about any of these programs, because he doesn't need them.

How can one unelected person have so much power over how Congress votes?  

Koch brothers Charles and David are billionaires who own the second largest privately owned business in the US.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koch_family

Under the smokescreen protection of their considerable contributions to philanthropy, they're like clandestine right wing puppeteers who throw their loose money away on Political Action Committee (PAC) campaigns to lie to American voters, just because they can.  They're unelected, of course.  Moreover, few people even know or understand how these two get away with what they're doing. They keep a nefarious low profile, while using their rights as American citizens to free speech to support their own political hobbies. They're empowered to use their money for undue political influence because the US Supreme Court handed them a Constitutional freedom to lie, in the Citizens United ruling.

How can these two unelected brothers have so much unchecked power to influence American voters?

Where is the check and balance for people with money, who exert undue influence over our democratic institutions?  Well, it's called the voter, or it's supposed to be us.  

Unfortunately, less people read objective media information while we're deluged with brainwashing TV ads paid for by unbridled political action committees, where the donors are anonymous. A prime example of their power is in the decadent amounts of money sent to Wisconsin Governor Walker in his campaign to keep his office, against opposition about how he divided the state over labor issues.  If Governor Walker was so right in how he managed Wisconsin, why did he need $30 (some say $60) million to get his message out?

Negative PAC ads paid for by rich people like the Koch Brothers are expensive relentless campaigns of lies. Voters, the checks for political corruption, are blindsided by advertising manipulation from making informed choices needed to contain undue influence by rich political hobbyists. 

Americans need to vote the disciples of rich political Godfathers out of office.

When Republicans hold up the US Constitution as being inspired by God, they should also push back on the corruptible power of money in politics. Politicians should demonstrate support for the system of checks and balances instituted by the founding fathers in their inspired governing document, because there's no Eliot Ness of politics around today, brave enough to take on political Godfathers.

But, as voters, we can elect our leaders instead of allowing the rich to buy undue political influence over who governs the middle class.