Here’s the most infuriating Republican excuse for deep-sixing witnesses at the Senate trial

Watching Republican senators take the unprecedented vote Friday to entirely exclude witness testimony from Donald Trump's impeachment trial was infuriating enough. But when Republicans made the rounds on Sunday morning to rationalize that vote, Senator Lamar Alexander of Tennessee—who was key to sealing the sham trial—made clear that he was simply too much of a coward to be faced with more reality. 

"If you have eight witnesses who say someone left the scene of an accident, why do you need nine?" Alexander said on Meet The Press. "I mean, the question for me was: Do I need more evidence to conclude that the president did what he did? And I concluded no."

Wanna help restore the U.S. Senate to responsible leadership? Give $2 right now to kick Senate Republicans to the curb. 

Alexander was among the first GOP senators to openly concede that he agreed with Democrats' House managers—Trump clearly did ask Ukraine to investigate the Bidens in 2016, and he withheld aid from the country to pressure its officials into doing what he wanted. But Alexander had also decided to vote against hearing from more witnesses anyway. So what he's really saying is: He didn't need any more people to testify to the miscarriage of justice he was about to deliver to the American people. He didn't need another person to make it any more difficult for him to look in the mirror when he gets up in the morning. Sure, Trump did it. Sure, it's wrong. And deep down, he knows it's an egregious affront to our democracy. But why dwell on what a craven vote he was about to cast? Especially when the person holding up that mirror—John Bolton—was among the most-trusted and well-regarded national security experts in GOP circles.

It's also worth remembering that Bolton’s testimony almost surely would have brought even more of Trump's damning betrayal of the country to light, making the GOP’s eventual acquittal vote even worse for Republicans like Alexander. Bolton’s testimony also clearly would have implicated Trump’s chief defense counsel, Pat Cipollone, in the scheme, which is exactly why Republicans couldn’t risk hearing from Bolton no matter what the cost.

In short, sorry, America, Alexander was feeling a little squeamish and was just too much of a coward to hear any more of Trump's abuses. 

Alexander ultimately told NBC’s Chuck Todd that he was leaving Trump’s fate up to “the people” to decide. What a terribly dishonest justification for abdicating your duty as an elected official and letting Trump off the hook. The whole reason Trump was impeached is because he’s trying to disenfranchise “the people” and rig the election in his favor. In other words, Trump is a proven threat to the sanctity of the very vote to which Alexander is purportedly deferring. Good luck with that morning look in the mirror, senator. 

Fascism rises: Graham says Senate GOP will do whatever it can to expose the whistleblower

If you missed it, yesterday strident Donald Trump toady Sen. Lindsey Graham explained to Fox "Business" host Maria Bartiromo what he believes the Republican Senate will do next, after voting to immunize Trump from a clearly criminal extortion scheme meant to gain foreign help in winning his reelection. Graham said the Senate will move on from declaring that no administration witnesses must be called in an impeachment trial to calling a litany of Obama-era administration officials to interrogate them about Trump's targets in that scheme, Joe and Hunter Biden.

Graham also vowed to do something far more serious: Summon the "whistleblower" who first told Congress of Trump's criminal conspiracy. This is so that Graham and Trump's other Republican allies can interrogate Dear Leader’s nameless critic and, possibly, expose, threaten, and target that person to the full force of the Republican’s treason-approving, violence-threatening, mail-bombing base.

Campaign Action

Graham told his host, Angry Fascist Banana, that Senate Intelligence Committee Chair Richard Burr told him the committee will be calling the whistleblower to testify. Graham said that he intended to expose "how all this crap started" and launched into a stream of absolutely false, propaganda-based conspiracy theories about who the whistleblower was "working with" that we will not repeat here. He did not, however, indicate whether Burr still intended to keep the whistleblower's identity secret or whether he had been pressured into changing his mind on that.

Graham, obviously, believes that he will find some conspiracy that will require, or at least justify, doing Trump's personal bidding by exposing the only White House-linked official in the entire administration who put their duty to their country above their fealty to a raving, corrupt man damaging national security and our elections for his own personal gain.

There can be little argument that the Republican Party is now a fascist organization. It has put Dear Leader above the rule of law. It has given Dear Leader an "absolute immunity" to solicit as much foreign government assistance as he can muster or extort for the purposes of throwing the next election in his favor, while insisting that it will still be a “free election” regardless of how much false, conspiracy-premised propaganda Dear Leader can bring to bear. Now it insists that Dear Leader's law-protecting supposed enemies be exposed, and made examples of.

x

x

Collins’ legacy: To be ‘remembered not for her courage, but for her capitulation’

The convention wisdom, for some unknown reason (laziness? lack of imagination?), that Sen. Susan Collins is a "moderate" still persists. Here's a headline in Sunday evening's Washington Post: "Republican Sen. Susan Collins finds it's lonely in the middle."

"Here in Maine," the story says, "where the famously independent Collins is locked in a tight reelection campaign, the choice elicited a wintry mix of cold shoulders and icy glares." The choice meaning her vote for witnesses in impeached president Donald Trump's trial, a vote that was carefully choreographed in Mitch McConnell's conference. That's because her "famous independence" is a sham, and people like Bill Nemitz, Maine's leading political observer, know it. In Sunday's Portland Press Herald, he laid out the whole con job.

Collins has chosen her side, and Maine knows it. Please give $1 to help Democrats in each of these crucial Senate races, but especially the one in Maine!

"She will say she tried her best. She'll note that she voted for witnesses in the impeachment trial of President Trump, but that vote fell short," he writes. "Then, when the final impeachment vote comes on Wednesday afternoon, expect Maine Sen. Susan Collins to fall back into the Republican line and vote to acquit." She has "pages upon pages of detailed notes" to justify her vote, but since they just could hear from those witnesses she really wanted to hear from, the case just hasn't been proven so she, sadly, has no choice. She has to stand with Trump. But Nemitz remembers when Collins "demonstrated integrity," when she wrote an op-ed in the Washington Post explaining "Why I Cannot Support Trump."

"Collins’ statement of conscience bears revisiting," Nemitz writes, "if only to show that while Trump hasn't changed, the senior senator from Maine most certainly has." She's no longer a moderate, an independent voice for Maine, and Maine knows that. This is what Maine is expecting to see this week: "So, come Wednesday and the final impeachment vote, look for Collins to express her deep concern at how nasty everyone has become, wring her hands over how difficult her life has grown and then, ever loyal to a party that now devours those who dissent, vote to let Trump off the hook." Yes, Nemitz knows her very well. "And long after this national trauma passes into history, Maine's Susan Collins will be forever remembered not for her courage, but for her capitulation."

Pelosi serves well-deserved shade on McConnell, Chief Justice Roberts over sham impeachment

No one can twist a political knife quite like House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Think of the now-legendary clapback at impeached president Donald Trump at last year's State of the Union address. She's the queen of shade, and you just knew that Mitch McConnell was going to be on the receiving end of some of that. It hit Saturday morning in a brutal tweet that cast a wide penumbra, taking in the potted plant who presided over last week's sham impeachment trial.

"It is a sad day for America to see Senator McConnell humiliate the Chief Justice of the United States into presiding over a vote which rejected our nation's judicial norms, precedents and institutions which uphold the Constitution and the rule of law," she wrote. Ouch. That's all she said. That's all she needed to say. Chief Justice John Roberts is going to come out of this thing looking like a tool, and it's because of McConnell's machinations. It's because there was no way McConnell was going to let this impeachment trial be anything but a travesty.

History is not going to look kindly on either of those men.

It's time to end McConnell's destructive stranglehold on the republic. Please give $1 to our nominee fund to help Democrats and end McConnell's career as Senate majority leader.

Sen. Joni Ernst, who is dumb, threatens to impeach Biden based on Rudy conspiracy theories

One of the problems with electing brick-stupid people as senators, as Republican voters have taken to doing in droves since the election of the first non-white American president broke what was left of their brains, is that those senators tend forever to be saying the quiet parts out loud.

Sen. Joni Ernst, inflicted on us by Iowa for some reason, has been (1) frothingly angry at the impeachment of Donald Trump for merely doing crimes, (2) eagerly leaping to television cameras to (for free) further the very same conspiracy Donald Trump was attempting to get out of the Ukrainian government for a few hundred million dollars, and (3) is now insisting that since Democrats meanly impeached Trump for crime-doing well maybe Republicans will impeach a theoretical President Biden too because screw you, that's why.

“Joe Biden should be very careful what he’s asking for because, you know, we can have a situation where if it should ever be President Biden, that immediately, people, right the day after he would be elected would be saying, ‘Well, we’re going to impeach him,’” Ernst told Bloomberg News.

For what reason?

“For being assigned to take on Ukrainian corruption yet turning a blind eye to Burisma because his son was on the board making over a million dollars a year.”

Bloomberg News notes, to their small credit, that this is not true. This is a conspiracy theory. In the real world as inhabited by those of us not raised by paint fumes, Biden demanded the removal of Ukrainian prosecutor Viktor Shokin for not prosecuting alleged corruption in companies like Burisma. Biden was acting on behalf of the United States government and State Department to further an official United States policy, one shared by the European Union and by Senate Republicans themselves. Because Shokin, now Rudy Giuliani's bestest friend after he came up with a host of theories on why everyone in Ukraine but him were the crooked ones, was corrupt.

What Bloomberg News does not point out, however, is that this makes Joni Ernst a liar. Not just a liar, but either a willful propagandist or an unwilling idiot, someone who allegedly is responsible for help writing our laws but who has not, at any point, been able to grasp even the most fundamental of information about the trial that she just fidget-spinnered her way through. She is furthering a lie, and using it as reason why Dear Leader's new enemy must be retaliated against, and justifying both the lie and the retaliation on the indignity of Dear Leader being asked to answer for doing what even her fellow Republican senators agree was a crooked act.

Sen. Joni Ernst may be taking the fascist path on these things but she is, thank God, not a bright fascist. A smarter Republican would have shut their pie-hole long ago but she just keeps going, apparently on a mission to show that her home state of Iowa will put literally anyone in a position of Republican power. Liars, white supremacists, you name it.

Lamar Alexander: Trump might be too dumb to know how to not commit crimes

It was soon-retiring Republican Sen. Lamar Alexander who effectively ended the impeachment trial of Donald J. Trump, doing so with a statement that asserted House managers had indeed proven that Trump used U.S. military aid as bargaining chip for obtaining a smear of his election opponent, but that doing so was merely "improper", and not an impeachable offense. Alexander thus settled on the answer that would do the most injury to our democracy and the rule of law: the "president" did it, the "president" was caught doing it, and the "president" is now allowed to do it, going forward, with no repercussions other than facing a vote he is now allowed, by Senate decree, to rig.

Defending this extremist, cancerous nullification on Meet the Press, Alexander did himself no favors. Alexander said that what Trump should have done, if he was so "upset" about Joe Biden and Ukraine, “he should have called the attorney general, and told him that, and let the attorney general handle it the way they always handle cases involving public figures.”

Why didn't he, asked his host? “Maybe he didn't know to do it,” Alexander said, letting loose a small chuckle after tossing that turd on the table.

Chuck Todd pushed back on this notion that Trump, entering his fourth year of office, was "still new to this"; Alexander allowed that "the bottom line it's not an excuse. He shouldn't have done it."

Let's just savor that, for a moment, as Alexander's continued defense for why Trump cannot be held accountable to the same standards as every other public figure corrodes our Constitution. Alexander is suggesting here that maybe Dear Leader was, as Robert Mueller's team concluded of Dear Leader Jr., during the last attempt by the Trump family to further international corruption if it is on their behalf, simply Too Stupid To Not Crime.

Trump may have an entire administration behind him, the top ranks stuffed with Republican radicals all, and a kept attorney general of his own mold, but Donald Trump is a stupid, stupid, stupid man. In three years nobody has been able to explain to him how to not crime. Through nearly a year of Rudy Giuliani scheming and Trump inserting Giuliani and his allied criminals into the decision-making loops of the State Department, White House and Budget Office, none of the myriad involved officials were able to inform him of how an "investigation" of such corruption would actually be done. If he were serious about it. If he had non-criminal motives.

Is it possible for Trump to be that stupid? Perhaps. He still believes "stealth" aircraft are literally invisible, after three years; his absolute immunity to learning absolutely anything is so impressive that we surely will come out of this with a new brain disease being named after him. It is less possible for every single member of his staff, sans John Bolton and subordinates, to also have accidentally crimed out of ignorance. Not impossible, but not likely.

In any event, the Alexander pitch is, somehow, worse than before. Not only has it been proven that Trump extorted Ukraine in order to gain an election favor, and not only is he now allowed to do that, the alternative being some (any) form of Senate check on his new discovered power, but Trump is allowed to break our laws if he is or can claim to be so very stupid that he simply cannot remember or absorb them.

If that were not enough, Lamar gave away the last bit of the game at the end.

"Now I think it's up to the American people to decide, okay, good economy, lower taxes, conservative judges, behavior that I might not like, the call to Ukraine. Weigh that against Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders and pick a president.

He broke the law, but we got our "conservative judges." He may have violated the Constitution, his oath of office, the public trust and the very foundations of our democracy, with the eager help of the Senate and the "conservative" press, but it is either rank corruption or electing a Democrat so rank corruption, hints Lamar, it is.

x

‘HELP!!!’ Internal emails reveal panicked weather agencies during ‘crazy’ SharpieGate crisis

Over 1,000 emails dropped Friday reveal the multi-agency upheaval that followed one of the stranger moments in recent Trump history: SharpieGate. Remember SharpieGate? It feels like a lifetime ago, but it was actually just five months ago that Donald Trump altered a National Weather Service map with a marker, rather than concede that he’d incorrectly named the states in path of a hurricane, sparking unnecessary fear.

Let’s back up a moment and do a quick recap of SharpieGate before we dig into the emails. Like so much of Trump’s nonsense, it all starts with a tweet. 

On the morning of Sept. 1, 2019, Hurricane Dorian hit the Bahamas hard as a Category 5, with 185mph winds; at least 70 people died. Trump took to Twitter to fire out conversational, somewhat presidential blessings and caution towards those on the mainland who might be in harm’s way.

x

Exactly 20 minutes later, the Birmingham field office of the National Weather Service sent out a tweet of its own.

x

Minutes later, the National Hurricane Center offered its own guidance.

x

The Twitter universe swooped right in.

x

Did Trump screw up? He had, most likely basing his list of states on out-of-date, earlier forecasts, which did include Alabama, as recently as just two days' earlier, not because he wanted to spark a cat-5 hurricane panic for the fun of it. It was one of the rare situations where most Americans would forgive the man for his error … if he’d just admitted he’d made a mistake.

Instead, Trump doubled down on the (non) danger posed to Alabama during a FEMA briefing a couple hours later, implying that it was NWS Birmingham who had outdated information—without quite saying its name. “(I)t may get a little piece of a great place: It’s called Alabama.  And Alabama could even be in for at least some very strong winds and something more than that, it could be.  This just came up, unfortunately,” Trump said, according to the White House’s official transcript.

Later on Sunday, on the South Lawn, Trump included Alabama again. “We don’t know where it’s going to hit, seems to be going to Florida, now it should be going to Georgia, the Carolinas,” he said. “Alabama to get a bit of a beat down. You’ll be learning more probably over the course of the next 24 hours.”

By early the next morning, Trump was lashing out at the media for reporting on his error, calling journalists “bad people” in a two-part tweet aimed at ABC News’ Jon Karl. What a way kickoff Labor Day.

x

Yet even then, this strange saga wasn’t yet known as SharpieGate. It didn’t get REALLY weird until Wed., Sept. 4, when Trump, while speaking to reporters in the Oval Office, presented a poster-sized image of NWS guidance as “proof” that Alabama was in Dorian’s path and thus he was perfect and right and right and perfect.

There was just one problem.

x

When a reporter commented on the modification, Trump didn’t deny it, ensuring that the absolutely ridiculous scandal would continue. 

x

And so #SharpieGate began. After just a few hours, Trump continued to refuse to admit he was wrong, and used an even more outdated map than the one he drew on. This one was an Aug. 29 “spaghetti” model from a Florida water management agency.

x

The Florida map says that NOAA/NHC guidance “supersedes” all. Also: Trump altered THAT model!

x

Unfazed, Trump just kept going.

x

On Friday, almost a week into the fiasco, NOAA finally spoke; it tossed NWS Birmingham right into the eye of the hurricane with an unattributed statement. 

x

SharpieGate didn’t end there, of course. The NOAA statement sparked rage throughout the weather science community, and soon The New York Times was reporting that Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross was the driving force behind the horrible statement. The chief of NOAA denied it on Sept. 11, and most people didn’t believe him, but for the most part, both Trump and the weather scientists got their way: The SharpieGate scandal fell off the news cycle, and the whistleblower complaint took its place. 

It seems fitting somehow that, just as the impeachment of Donald Trump is coming to its end, SharpieGate is back in the headlines.

Again, this never needed to be a thing. Trump, or one of his spineless minions, could have just said “Whoops, this was based on bad data” and moved on. Instead, He Who Is Never Right had to be right; when NWS Birmingham sent out the correct information, Trump took it as a slight, hearing his name where it hadn’t been called. I read a bit more than half of the email cache, and the Birmingham office’s chief meteorologist maintains that his “day shift” had no idea about Trump’s tweet until about 10 minutes after they sent out their own. The chief, Chris Darden, was forced to insist that his team wasn’t tweeting in “’direct’ response to the POTUS.” Only in this presidency would such a “direct” tweet be considered a bad thing! The NOAA didn’t necessarily cover things perfectly—staff were ordered early on Day One of SharpieGate to “not provide any opinion” and direct all queries to the agency’s Public Affairs department. The edict was sent out again after Trump showed off his poster on Sept. 4, and again the next day. The email trove also shows how unprepared a bunch of weather PR people—some of whom were also scientists—were for their time in the center ring of a Trump circus. The NWS Director of Public Affairs, Susan Buchanan, challenges Social Media Lead Corey Pieper when he warns her about Trump’s special map: “Are you sure they were doctored?” (“Yes,” he writes back.)

“HELP!!!” is all Dennis Feltgen, a meteorologist and communications officer, offers as commentary on a forwarded media request from ABC News after Trump showed off his altered weather map. “I pray this thing dies off by morning,” writes Deputy Chief of Staff Julie Roberts just a couple hours later. The next morning, a Deputy Undersecretary, Benjamin Friedman, calls the doctoring of the map “crazy.”  More telling? The anger at the NOAA statement that undermined NWS Birmingham. “You are not going to believe this BULL,” NOAA official Maureen O’Leary writes to a colleague on vacation, attributing the anonymous statement to Roberts. “I hope you are having a great trip.”

The outrage over the NOAA statement, which was loud in public, was just as hot internally. “Please address this crisis in moral leadership our agency is facing,” wrote a Seattle-based senior biologist to NWS Director Neil Jacobs, gaining the attention of retired Navy Rear Admiral and Deputy NOAA Administrator Tim Gallaudet, who said he and Jacobs “did not approve or support” the NOAA statement.  BuzzFeed’s self-declared “FOIA Terrorist,” investigative reporter Jason Leopold, has been updating this thread with new gems as he and his team make their way through the cache.  

x

Go ahead and dig in to see just how many people scrambled to protect Donald Trump’s ego after they correctly reported hurricane projections. That Trump expects to have his own errors handled in such a way is no surprise in light of the impeachment case presented by the House Managers in recent weeks. It’s just that much more disturbing.

For the sake of our country, read this 2016 article again, because every word of it is coming true

It’s stunning to look back and realize it now, but this was written just two days after the 2016 election.  Along with Adam Serwer's piece in the Atlantic, bluntly titled “The Cruelty is the Point,” and Timothy Snyder’s tract, “On Tyranny,” Masha Gessen’s brief essay in the New York Review of Books,  “Autocracy: Rules for Survival,”  warning us of the threat Donald Trump posed to our nation’s continued existence as a functioning republic, has proved itself over and over as a frighteningly prescient and disturbingly accurate prediction of how this would all play out, down almost to its very last word.

Gessen, a Russian-American writer and National Book Award winner, has lived in autocracies most of her life. As an outspoken critic of Russian president Vladimir Putin, she was one of the first to point out that Trump would, based on all evidence at the time, essentially govern in Putin’s shadow, slowly and inexorably transforming the American Republic by imposing a corrupt, autocratic system on so-called American “institutions.”  As it turned out, Gessen’s assessment of the looming danger posed by Trump and his collaborators in the Republican Party, and her pithy but sound advice on what to expect from a regime that considered itself unbound by such institutions, resounds even more prophetically today as we watch another supposedly hallowed institution, the United States Senate, crumble into dust and irrelevancy, right before our eyes.

The purpose of this is not to revisit the entirety of Gessen’s essay. Most here have already read it (if not you should read it now). Briefly, she sets down a list of six immutable rules of autocratic behavior and explains how ordinary citizens must react, cope, and counter this type of tyranny; and she predicts how the Trump administration would fulfill each of those rules in its efforts to transform our government into something as near a dictatorship as possible. Those rules are: 1) Believe the autocrat—do not for a minute believe anything he says is intended simply to shock or exaggerate; 2) Do not be taken in by small signs of normality; 3) Institutions will not save you; 4) Be outraged; 5) Don’t make compromises; and 6) Remember the future.  Each one of these principles is followed by a prediction of how Trump would turn them into reality for our nation.  And each one, more or less, turned out to be accurate.

If you have any doubt as to the legitimacy of Gessen’s analysis or the soundness of her advice, then consider the following excerpts from it, written two days after the 2016 election and two months before Trump actually took office. The signs of just how perilously weak the American Republic would be in withstanding such an assault were evident in the concession speeches of Hillary Clinton, the words of the Democratic runner-up Bernie Sanders, and even former President Barack Obama, all of whom offered varied forms of the standard “olive branch” owed by the politically vanquished to the victor. Expecting Trump, whose real goal was absolute power, to respond to these platitudes was a depressing exercise in outright naivete, masking as political politesse. Gessen saw it for what it was: ridiculous and dangerous.

However well-intentioned, this talk assumes that Trump is prepared to find common ground with his many opponents, respect the institutions of government, and repudiate almost everything he has stood for during the campaign. In short, it is treating him as a “normal” politician. There has until now been little evidence that he can be one.

Gessen first predicted that contrary to the common assumption that Trump could never command the allegiance of so-called “mainstream” conservatives, the  Republican Party would instead rush to embrace Trump. In this she was, again, absolutely correct.

He has no political establishment into which to fold himself following the campaign, and therefore no reason to shed his campaign rhetoric. On the contrary: it is now the establishment that is rushing to accommodate him—from the president, who met with him at the White House on Thursday, to the leaders of the Republican Party, who are discarding their long-held scruples to embrace his radical positions.

After what is expected to be a full-blown acquittal of Trump in the Republican Senate next week (possibly accompanied by a few shiny votes of some Democratic quislings fearful of Trump’s wrath), there is no doubt whatsoever that the Republican Party, including nearly every elected Republican official in the country, is prostrate under Trump’s boot-heel. It was almost amusing to watch the media circus solemnly placing the fate of an autocratic monster in the hands of proven cowards such as Susan Collins, Mitt Romney and Lamar Alexander.  The Republican-controlled  Senate is now as laughable an entity as was the Roman Senate in Caligula’s age, and it seems only a matter of time before Trump sees fit to place a horse in the chamber.

Gessen also assured us with dead-on certainty that Trump would continue with his campaign-stated plans to dismantle not only the Affordable Care Act (which he has tried to do, with some success), but most if not all of the legislation and rulemaking passed in the Obama administration (which he has done), and would continue to use the functions of government whenever possible to punish his political opponents.

Observers and even activists functioning in the normal-election mode are fixated on the Supreme Court as the site of the highest-risk impending Trump appointment. There is little doubt that Trump will appoint someone who will cause the Court to veer to the right; there is also the risk that it might be someone who will wreak havoc with the very culture of the high court. And since Trump plans to use the judicial system to carry out his political vendettas, his pick for attorney general will be no less important.

With the nomination of Executive Power ideologues  Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Attorney General William Barr, Trump again has performed exactly how Gessen predicted. She suggested that a Chris Christie or Rudy Giuliani could be chosen for AG, specifically for the purpose of investigating Hillary Clinton. As it turns out, Trump found someone possibly worse than that in Barr, while retaining Giuliani as his personal consigliere.

Gessen also predicted how the stock market would respond to Trump--it would leap to embrace his lies as if on cue: “Confronted with political volatility, the markets become suckers for calming rhetoric from authority figures. So do people. Panic can be neutralized by falsely reassuring words about how the world as we know it has not ended.”  This is exactly what (until the Coronavirus reared its head) the financial markets have done in response to Trump’s lies about the “trade war” with China. They and the financial press have reacted like trained monkeys, eager to accept the most absurd assurances about Trump’s tariffs and his trade “policy.”

But the harshest prediction has been the most devastating. Gessen, asserting that “institutions will not save us,” first noted that Vladimir Putin took a year to totally assimilate the Russian media landscape and an additional four years to dismantle its electoral system, so-called “institutions” which Americans also claim as their own. The same dismantling of the “cherished bulwarks” of these paper-thin “democracies”  occurred in Turkey and Poland over the span of a few years.

Gessen acknowledges that the United States has stronger institutions than these second-world nations, as we were continually reminded at the start of Trump’s term in office. But here’s the thing:

The problem, however, is that many of these institutions are enshrined in political culture rather than in law, and all of them—including the ones enshrined in law—depend on the good faith of all actors to fulfill their purpose and uphold the Constitution.

The abdication of its responsibilities by fully one-half of the United States Congress and Senate in support of a wannabee dictator like Donald Trump—and the complete and wholesale embrace of corruption that this represented—is the most visible demolition of our institutions, but the pollution of our Federal judiciary with rabid  (and in many cases totally incompetent) ideologues is no less corrosive to the American constitutional order. For our Democracy to survive it is necessary that certain rules and norms be observed, rules and norms that everyone accepts.  When one party is willing to forego the truth in pursuance of contrived conspiracies and outright lies; when one party through procedural manipulation ensures that no legislation will proceed or even receive debate, then that essential good faith has clearly been abandoned. As a result, the “institution” dies an ignominious death. The dissolution of our federal government under Trump has also been accelerated by the perversion of our federal agencies, now tasked with working not for the interests of the American people, but for a narrow corporate donor base.

The dismantling of institutions is not limited to our Constitutional structure; Gessen also predicted exactly what would happen to the press after Trump. At the risk of being repetitious, remember this was two days after the election itself, and well before Trump even entered the White House:

The national press is likely to be among the first institutional victims of Trumpism. There is no law that requires the presidential administration to hold daily briefings, none that guarantees media access to the White House. Many journalists may soon face a dilemma long familiar to those of us who have worked under autocracies: fall in line or forfeit access. There is no good solution (even if there is a right answer), for journalism is difficult and sometimes impossible without access to information.

The power of the investigative press—whose adherence to fact has already been severely challenged by the conspiracy-minded, lie-spinning Trump campaign—will grow weaker. The world will grow murkier. Even in the unlikely event that some mainstream media outlets decide to declare themselves in opposition to the current government, or even simply to report its abuses and failings, the president will get to frame many issues...[.]

Trump now has an army of voters numbering in the tens of millions who simply do not believe legitimate news sources, since they report negative news about Trump. Attacks on journalists and media outlets are a staple of his Nuremberg-like rallies. Seasoned reporters and news agencies, from CNN to NPR, are now routinely singled out and denied access to a White House that has all but abandoned press briefings.  Again, Gessen was spot on in her prediction: indeed, “institutions” will not save us. It only remains to be seen whether foreign influence in the form of Russian-generated propaganda will topple our last remaining institution—our elections themselves. Significantly, Gessen’s essay was written before the Mueller investigation was even conceived, let alone the degree of Russian influence on the 2016 electorate discovered.

So where does that leave us? There are only three rules left.

Of those, the first is  “Be outraged.”  Do not normalize anything this administration does. Never forget that this is not normal.  It can never be allowed to be normal. Most of us here have learned  through the bitter experience of the last three years to never stop fighting against this nightmare. We are not alone in our outrage, and we should never forget the fact that there are millions of us—in fact we are the majority.

The second, Don’t make compromises. This should go without saying, but somehow some Democrats need to be reminded. There can be no cooperation—ever--with this regime. As Gessen states, to do otherwise is not only corrupting, but soul-destroying. Willfully or even expediently ignoring the corruption of this fledgling autocracy will destroy any future this country may still possess.

Finally: Remember the future. Trump and Trumpism will come to an end one day. The man himself will no longer be around in a few years and his unique brand of insouciance and arrogance has already shown itself not to play well in the form of pale imitations. Trumpism and Trump’s personality are not as transferable or convertible as the Republican Party believes. 2018 showed that very, very clearly, and we all have the power to ensure that 2020 will demonstrate it to the Republicans again.

Most importantly, Gessen urges that the Democrats must offer up a powerful and compelling alternative vision to counterbalance Trump’s conjuring of an imaginary, lily-white past that appeals so much to his racist, xenophobic base. That is the challenge of not only of our nominee, but for all Democrats who want to wrest our country back from the brink of tyranny where it now rests. We failed to do that in 2016. We cannot and must not fail again.

Midnight revelation: The OMB has been hiding emails that explicitly show Trump’s motives on Ukraine

A midnight court filing on Friday night revealed that the White House is refusing to release at least two dozen emails directly related to Donald Trump’s withholding of military assistance from Ukraine. The filing, authored by an attorney from the Office of Management and Budget, described the until now hidden documents as communications by Trump or his immediate advisers “regarding Presidential decision-making about the scope, duration, and purpose of the hold on military assistance to Ukraine."

In other words, the idea that Trump withheld military assistance to Ukraine because of concerns over corruption, or the need for more “burden sharing” — as Trump’s defense team has stated throughout hearings in the House and the trial in the Senate — could be directly revealed by an examination of these documents. Which they will not share.

As CNN reports, the Department of Justice withheld the existence of these emails until just hours after the Senate had made it’s vote to not subpoena any further witnesses or documents in Trump’s impeachment trial. This appears to be another staggering example of how Trump has used the full power of the executive branch to paper over his actions, block access to key information, and simply prevent the release of the truth.

The argument from the DOJ is that the collection of emails are privileged because they include “discussions regarding Presidential decision-making.” Which is, of course, exactly the thing that makes them valuable. And exactly the kind of claim that shows how ridiculous it is to suggest that executive privilege can be broadly applied in an impeachment trial.

These documents are directly on the subject of Trump’s impeachment. They obviously speak exactly the the motivation behind Trump’s action — something that Trump’s defense team, including Ukraine plot participant Pat Cipollone have been insisting can not be known. They are collected, available … and hidden for no purpose other than to preserve the lies that have been told to disguise Trump’s actual reasoning.

The nature of these documents, and the timing of their release, speaks more than ever to the point that the entire executive branch is enlisted in support of Trump’s cover-up. Making it impossible to have a fair trial unless the Senate will consider that cover-up worthy of impeachment.

Republicans have hell to pay for torching our republic. Make. Them. Pay. NOW

It is darkness in the daytime, and the only light is cast by the bonfire of despotism into which the Republican Party is pitching our Constitution.

Donald Trump has transgressed two of the oldest and gravest injunctions known to humankind—thou shalt not steal and thou shalt not bear false witness—and Republican senators have admitted that he is guilty.

But for all their professed fealty to tradition, to law and order, to knowing right from wrong, they simply do not care. They have decided that it’s not against the law to commit a crime, so long as the wicked leader of their death cult is the criminal.

A reckoning is now due. The Republicans in the Senate have shown us that they will not deliver justice, so we must deliver justice ourselves.

While Republicans have confessed they will do everything in their power to rig these next elections, we must do everything in our power to ensure that they are free, that they are fair, and that Republicans lose—as badly as possible.

Let us show just how serious we are. We can contribute today to help unseat the most vulnerable Republican senators come November. The more we give, the greater the fear we will instill in them, and the more likely we are to prevail.

We are disgusted, we are dismayed, we are filled with sorrow. But we are also very, very angry, and we must channel that anger. Republicans want to put our democracy to the torch, but together we can douse those flames and build anew.

Please, give whatever you can right now. The future of our dear republic depends on it.