However The Night Ends, Remember These Two Things

 1.  However things turn out, remember that more people will have voted for Democratic candidates than Republican.  Only a Senate that gives small states (Wyoming and Alaska both have under 1,000,000 populations) the same number of Senators as large states (California has almost 40 million and New York has 20 million) and gerrymandered House maps cause the outcome to seem close. 

2.  Whatever the results, we must continue the struggle for respect, decency, understanding, and democracy.  No gloating if the results are good, no giving up if they aren't.  

The 2024 election begins Monday.  Lots of people have to talk to people about their values and where they came from and listen to others do the same.  Here's one path forward:

What is going to happen in these midterms? And what will it take for the pro-freedom movement to defeat American fascism?

Join @anatosaurus and me for this @nytopinion Twitter Space today at 12:30 pm ET.https://t.co/W9xLbOYjK4

— THE PERSUADERS by Anand Giridharadas (@AnandWrites) November 7, 2022

I worked at a polling place today from 10:30 to 2:30.  Everyone was cordial to everyone.  Even when a ballot got jammed in the machine and people had to wait, they were calm and reasonable.  (I did have home made chocolate chip cookies as compensation for the wait to fix the machine.)

Click to enlarge

Alaska has great I VOTED stickers.  The blue Alaska flag stickers and then some alternate stickers designed by kids.  

Sen. Specter Questioning Alito At His Confirmation Hearing

Haven't had time to read the whole thing - it's very long - but I thought reviewing Justice Samuel Alito's confirmation hearing might offer us some insight.  Unfortunately, it's another sunny day and Alaska is calling loudly.  So I offer you this short bit where the committee chair Sen. Arlen Specter questions Alito:

Chairman SPECTER. Judge Alito, the commentators have characterized Casey as a super precedent. Judge Luttig, in the case of Richmond Medical Center, called the Casey decision super stare decisis. In quoting from Casey, Judge Luttig pointed out, the essential holding of Roe v. Wade should be retained and once again re- affirmed. Then in support of Judge Luttig’s conclusion that Casey was super stare decisis, he refers to Stenberg v. Carhart, and quotes the Supreme Court, saying, ‘‘We shall not revisit these legal principles.’’ That is a pretty strong statement for the Court to make, that we shall not revisit the principles upon which Roe was founded, and the concept of super stare decisis or super precedent arises as the commentators have characterized it, by a number of different Justices appointed by a number of different judges over a considerable period of time. Do you agree that Casey is a super precedent or a super stare decisis as Judge Luttig said?

Judge ALITO. Well, I personally would not get into categorizing precedents as super precedents or super duper precedents, or any—

Chairman SPECTER. Did you say ‘‘super duper?’’ [Laughter.]

Judge ALITO. Right.

Chairman SPECTER. Good.

Judge ALITO. Any sort of categorization like that—

Chairman SPECTER. I like that.

[Laughter.]

Judge ALITO [continuing]. Sort of reminds me of the size of laundry detergent in the supermarket.

[Laughter.]

Judge ALITO. I agree with the underlying thought that when a

precedent is reaffirmed, that strengthens the precedent, and when the Supreme Court says that we are not—

Chairman SPECTER. How about being reaffirmed 38 times?

Judge ALITO. Well, I think that when a precedent is reaffirmed, each time it’s reaffirmed that is a factor that should be taken into account in making the judgment about stare decisis, and when a precedent is reaffirmed on the ground that stare decisis precludes or counsels against reexamination of the merits of the precedent, then I agree that that is a precedent on precedent.

Now, I don’t want to leave the impression that stare decisis is an inexorable command because the Supreme Court has said that it is not, but it is a judgment that has to be based, taking into ac- count all of the factors that are relevant and that are set out in the Supreme Court’s cases.

Chairman SPECTER. Judge Alito, during the confirmation hearing of Chief Justice Roberts, I displayed a chart. I do not ordinarily like charts, but this one I think has a lot of weight because it lists all 38 cases which have been decided since Roe, where the Supreme Court of the United States had the opportunity to—Senator Hatch is in the picture now.

[Laughter.]

Chairman SPECTER. It is a good photo op for Senator Hatch. Senator Leahy is complaining.

[Laughter.]

Senator LEAHY. Just balance it on Orrin’s head. Senator HATCH. Put that over by Leahy.

322

Chairman SPECTER. He wants it on his side.

[Laughter.]

Chairman SPECTER. I think the point of it is that there have

been so many cases, so many cases, 15 after your statement in 1985 that I am about to come to, and eight after Casey v. Planned Parenthood, which is why it has special significance, and I am not going to press the point about super precedent. I am glad I did not have to mention super duper, that you did. Thank you very much.

Let me come now to the statement you made in 1985, that the Constitution does not provide a basis for a woman’s right to an abortion. Do you agree with that statement today, Judge Alito?

Judge ALITO. Well, that was a correct statement of what I thought in 1985 from my vantage point in 1985, and that was as a line attorney in the Department of Justice in the Reagan administration.

Today if the issue were to come before me, if I am fortunate enough to be confirmed and the issue were to come before me, the first question would be the question that we’ve been discussing, and that’s the issue of stare decisis. And if the analysis were to get beyond that point, then I would approach the question with an open mind, and I would listen to the arguments that were made.

Chairman SPECTER. So you would approach it with an open mind notwithstanding your 1985 statement?

Judge ALITO. Absolutely, Senator. That was a statement that I made at a prior period of time when I was performing a different role, and as I said yesterday, when someone becomes a judge, you really have to put aside the things that you did as a lawyer at prior points in your legal career and think about legal issues the way a judge thinks about legal issues.

Chairman SPECTER. Judge Alito, coming to the role you had in the Solicitor General’s Office, where you wrote the memorandum in the Thornburgh case, urging restriction and ultimate appeal of Roe, that was in your capacity as an advocate. And I have seen your other statements that the role of an advocate is different from the role of a judge. But when you made the statement that the Constitution did not provide for the right to an abortion, that was in a statement you made where you were looking to get a job, a pro- motion within the Federal Government. So there is a little difference between the 1985 statement and your advocacy role in the Thornburgh memorandum, is there not?

Judge ALITO. Well, there is, Senator, and what I said was that that was a true expression of my views at the time, the statement in the 1985 appointment form that I filled out. It was a statement that I made at a time when I was a line attorney in the Department of Justice. I’m not saying that I made the statement simply because I was advocating the administration’s position, but that was the position that I held at the time, and that was the position of the administration.

Chairman SPECTER. Would you state your views, the difference as you see it between what you did as an advocate in the Solicitor General’s Office to what your responsibilities would be, are on the Third Circuit, or what they would be on the Court if confirmed as a judicial capacity?

323

Judge ALITO. Well, an advocate has the goal of achieving the result that the client wants within the bounds of professional responsibility. That’s what an advocate is supposed to do, and that’s what I attempted to do during my years as an advocate for the Federal Government. Now, a judge doesn’t have a client, as I said yesterday, and a judge doesn’t have an agenda, and a judge has to follow the law. An important part of the law in this area, as we look at it in 2006, is the law of stare decisis.

Chairman SPECTER. Judge Alito, you have written some 361 opinions that I would like to have the time to discuss quite a few of them with you, but I am only going to pick up one in the first round, and that is an opinion you wrote in the Elizabeth Blackwell Health Center for Women v. Knoll, and that was a case where there was a challenge between a Pennsylvania statute, which required as a prerequisite to a woman getting Medicaid, that she would have had to have reported a rape or an incest to the police, and second, a requirement that there be a second opinion from a doctor that she needed an abortion to save her life. And that statutory requirement, those two provisions conflicted with a regulation by the Department of Health and Human Services. You were on the Third Circuit, which held that the Pennsylvania statute should be stricken in deference to the rule of the Health and Human Services Department. And Judge Nygaard entered a very forceful dissent say- ing that this was an interpretive rule and it was inappropriate to have that kind of an interpretive rule by the Department counter- vail a statute.

What was your thinking in that case? Had you been predisposed to take a tough line on a woman’s right to choose or on Medicaid support for someone who had been raped, you would have upheld the statute. What was your thinking in that case?

Judge ALITO. Well, what you said is correct, Senator. I cast the deciding vote there to strike down the Pennsylvania statute, and I did it because that’s what I thought the law required. I thought the law required that we defer to the interpretation of the Federal statute that had been made by the Department of Health and Human Services. If I had had an agenda to strike down any—I’m sorry, to uphold any regulation of abortion that came up in any case that was presented to me, then I would have voted with Judge Nygaard in that case, and that would have turned the decision the other way.

I’ve sat on three abortion cases on the Third Circuit. In one of them—that was the Casey case—I voted to uphold regulations of abortion, and in the other two—the Elizabeth Blackwell case and Planned Parenthood v. Farmer—I voted to strike them down. And in each instance, I did it because that’s what I thought the law required.

Again, you can find the whole transcript of the hearing here.

We are no longer at a point where these hearings serve the purpose they were intended for.  The Republicans first forays with far right judges - Bork, etc - were turned back.  But now it's just about whether one party or the other controls the Senate.  It used to be that most justices got approved by large majorities, now it's generally straight down party lines.  Not to mention McConnell block Obama appointments altogether and then rushing through Trump's.  

The Wisconsin Senate Race: Ron Johnson Will Run Again Despite Limiting Himself To Two Terms

Johnson announced he was running again yesterday, from what I can tell, in a Wall Street Journal editorial.  But WSJ is pay-walled.   

I realized that the only thing I really knew about the Wisconsin Senate race this year is that Republican Senator Ron Johnson has:

". . . been a major disappointment since his re-election in 2016," said James Wigderson, former editor the RightWisconsin website who supported Johnson in 2010 and 2016. "Conservatives of good conscience should recognize that Johnson's conspiracy theories, his support for quack medicine, and his active support for undermining our democratic elections should disqualify Johnson from ever serving in public office again." [from Milwaukee Journal Sentinel]

He's been one of Trump's strongest supporters in the Senate.  He was one of seven GOP Senators and one Representative who made the infamous July 2018 trip to Moscow    

I wanted to know who was running against him.  Ballotopedia lists all those that have officially registered (Johnson isn't on their list yet.)  The show twelve Democrats running.  I'm going to highlight four and hope I'm not overlooking one I should be covering.  

The four top Democrats, according to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel article are an interesting group.  Actually Barnes appears to be the front runner and the other three aren't much ahead of the rest of the pack. 

1.  Lt. Governor Mandela Barnes  born 1986 (35)

Photo Ballotopedia

Barnes is a Milwaukee native and leading the field in early polling. He's been a member of the Wisconsin state assembly, lost a state senate race, and then came back to win the Lt. Governor position.

You can learn a lot more about him in this Jewish Insider piece.  I've found their profiles on this race to be in depth and wide ranging.  And there all very recent.

2.  Alex Lasky  - born 1984 (37)

Alex's father immigrated to the US and Morocco and became a hedge fund billionaire and is part owner of the Milwaukee Bucks and a big Democratic fundraiser, which might be one reason Alex landed a job in the Obama White House.  Alex moved from New York to Milwaukee to be senior vice president of the Bucks.  Another assist from his dad.   You might have guessed that his fundraising is doing well.  And one of the campaign videos I saw made him look really good.   But he also feels a lot like a Democratic Dan Sullivan - not necessarily on the issues, but in how he's moved to a new state, in this case to run his father's basketball team, and now is running for US Senate.  Here's the JI profile.

3.  Sarah Godlewski - Wisconsin State Treasurer - born 1981 (40)

Sarah Godlewski is the state treasurer, so she's won statewide office in Wisconsin, but that was her first race.  Another Jewish Insider profile.      Here Wikipedia profile offers more details of her interesting international experience.

4.  Tom Nelson -  Born 1976 (45)  

His profile from Ballotpedia:

"Tom Nelson was born in St. Paul, Minnesota. He earned a bachelor's degree from Carleton College in 1998 and a graduate degree from Princeton University in 2004. Nelson's career experience includes working as the county executive of Outagamie County. He has been associated with the Christ the King Lutheran Church, Loaves and Fishes Food Pantry, Nichols Historical Society, Outagamie County Democratic Party, and the Seymour Historical Society.[1][2]"

From another JI Insider profile, this assessment of Nelson from a progressive in Wisconsin:

“Most people think of us as two states: a red state and a blue state, and never the twain shall mix,” he told JI via email. “Tom Nelson is a Democratic county executive with great values, who has been elected and reelected in a large, generally Republican-voting county. That is the kind of candidate that can win statewide.”

But he's got to win the primary first.

The best overview of the race I found was the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel's piece linked above.

Manchin - Thinking Out Loud

[I live in Alaska.  I've passed through West Virginia long ago.  I have no inside knowledge about Manchin.  Just general thoughts about how people behave in political organizations.]

Manchin and Sinema keep trading places in the headlines as the person who is holding climate change and other critical issues hostage.  

Since I live in an oil state, I have an inkling of the pressure that any US Senator from Alaska feels - Democrat or Republican.  When Mark Begich was the Democratic Senator from Alaska, he supported oil development.  It's part of the job of an Alaskan Senator.  Or at least the perception is that if you aren't an oil supporter, you won't get elected.  Oil money will sink your campaign.  So Alaskan Democrats might lobby a Democratic Senator on climate change, but we know oil interests lobby harder.  Sen. Murkowski understands the importance of climate change and bows to oil and GOP pressure.  

So I understand that Manchin needs to stand strong on coal.  He stands strong with the coal industry and the jobs it brings his state.  Even if the demand for coal is waning.  Even if many coal miners die a premature death from black lung disease.  In Alaska oil doesn't actually employ that many people compared to other sectors.  And almost 40% commute from Outside for one or two week rotations. But for the last 40 years it has paid for state government.  Whenever there is any opposition to what the oil companies want, they spend massive amounts of money to sway public opinion that only oil can keep Alaskans employed and enjoying the lifestyle they've come to expect.  Even if it's not true. 

I saw a Tweet yesterday responding to someone complaining that Biden couldn't deliver major legislation the way LBJ or FDR could.  The responders pointed out that LBJ had a 66-34 Democratic majority going into the 1964 and a 68 -32 majority after the election.  There were lots of Democrats from the South that wouldn't vote for the landmark Civil Rights legislation.  LBJ needed Republican votes to beat the filibuster, which in those days you had to actually carry out by speaking 24 hours straight or longer.  But when you were done, the vote was taken and it wasn't 2/3.  Today you just push a button and kill the legislation.  Biden has 48 Democrats and 2 Independents and 50 Republicans. He has no wiggle room whatsoever. 

One could say that by holding up critical climate change legislation to prolong the coal industry's slow death, Manchin is condemning millions of people around the world to premature deaths.  Not just because of this one bill, but because if the US falters on this, then it will give other countries around the world an excuse to go slower too.  And the slower we go, the more people will be displaced and die because of how climate change will play out.  More violent storms.  More drought causing massive fires and forcing people off the land their families have farmed for generations.  More wars to fight for scarce resources like water, arable land, livable temperatures.  And it wouldn't be wrong to say - and history books might - that Manchin was the person who did this.

But Manchin is only the focal point because of other problems as well:

• Our US Senate is grossly unrepresentative.  Because every state, no matter the population, has two senators, small, rural states have more more senators than their small populations deserve.  Alaska, with 733,391 people has two Senators just like California with almost 40 million people  - 54 times as many people!  Democrats in the Senate represent 43 million more people than the Republican Senators represent.  
• There are 50 Republican Senators who aren't being put in the spotlight like Manchin.  What are they doing?  There isn't one who has the courage to vote yes?
• Minority leader McConnell could work out a deal to get this passed.  But making Democrats look bad is his main objective.  That and voter suppression is the only way Republicans can stay in power at all for now.  

I don't know what other pressures Manchin is under.  It's clear he's not looking at his situation in a long term world survival perspective.  He's up for reelection in 2024.  Coal is the dirtiest of fossil fuels and it's going to end soon,  It's already way down in production and use,

So what must be going on behind the scenes? Some (not mutually exclusive) possibilities.  

1. He needs to publicly (in West Virginia) appear to be the man who stood up to protect West Virginia's coal,
2. He needs to protect the coal interests of his major financial backers.
3. He wants to protect his own financial interests in coal.  

Numbers 2 and 3 are harder to make deals on.  If it were only #1, it would seem like the Democrats could do a number of things that benefit West Virginia in exchange for his vote like:

1. exempt West Virginia from restrictions on coal- though if power plants are giving incentives for clean fuel, that would mean they would move away from West Virginia coal even if it were exempted.
2. offer boosts to care for coal mine related health problems for West Virginia
3. offer job retraining programs for coal miners and incentives for businesses in West Virginia to hire them and/or incentives for companies outside of West Virginia to relocate or open work places in WV
4. make a big public show of all the sacrifices Democrats had to make to satisfy Manchin for WV consumption

He's already getting lots of attention for standing firm for West Virginia's interests (whether that's true or not, it's the perception) so I'm guessing it's pressure from businesses more than voters.  Or, businesses that will spend money in the next election supporting or opposing Manchin.  While he first got elected by a strong majority in 2012, in 2018 he squeaked by with less than 50% of the vote.  

But life oddly thrusts people into the spotlight for different reasons.  Had Georgia not elected two Democratic Senators, Manchin would be much less important.  Maybe invisible.  And people really mad at Manchin have to remember if he weren't a Democrat, McConnell would still be the Senate Majority leader.  

I'd also note that we see many headlines about Manchin as well as those about Biden being in trouble because conflict and drama attract eyeballs, so the media push the conflict and use competitive sports metaphors as a way of getting more advertisers.  

What The Headlines Tell Us About The News Organization

I was reading the LA Times online today and there's a story about all the people running for LA mayor next year.  The latest entrant appears to be Rep. Karen Bass, an LA Democrat.  I was confused by this sentence:

"Voters now have a much clearer picture of next year’s contest to replace Garcetti, who faces term limits."  

I thought he'd been named Ambassador to India.  Is he still mayor?  So I googled "LA Mayor Garcetti  India" and got this page.  I've cut much of it and just left the headlines. These are all dated July 9, 2021 or thereabouts.  They're all pretty much the same, except one:

"Search Results    Web results

Biden nominates LA Mayor Eric Garcetti to be ambassador to ...https://dailybruin.com › 2021/07/26 › biden-nominates...

Garcetti is Biden's pick for ambassador to India - Los Angeles ...https://www.latimes.com › california › story › la-mayor...

Mayor Garcetti Selected as Ambassador to India - NBC Los ...https://www.nbclosangeles.com › news › politics › la-m...

Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti picked for ambassador ... - CNNhttps://www.cnn.com › 2021/07/09 › politics › eric-garcet...

Biden nominates LA Mayor Eric Garcetti for India ambassadorhttps://apnews.com › article

Biden Chooses Scandal-Plagued L.A. Mayor Garcetti As India ...https://www.forbes.com › sites › joewalsh › 2021/07/09

Biden taps Eric Garcetti for India ambassador posthttps://www.washingtonpost.com › politics › 2021/07/09

Biden picks Los Angeles Mayor Garcetti to be US ambassador ...https://www.reuters.com › world › biden-nominate-los-an...

Joe Biden Taps Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti To Servehttps://deadline.com › 2021/07 › joe-biden-taps-los-ang...

President Biden Nominates LA Mayor Eric Garcetti For ... - LAisthttps://laist.com › news › politics › president-biden-no...

 There are lots of criticisms of the subtle ways that media's choice of words biases a reader's perception of the story.  But there's nothing subtle about this.  I haven't read the articles.  Perhaps the Forbes one is more of an opinion piece than a news item.  It certainly stands out.  

But I was still trying to find out why Garcetti is still Mayor and not in India.  My guess was Senate confirmation backlog, but I couldn't find anything that said that.  Various google searches kept getting me the same articles dated around July.  Even ones that said "When is he leaving office?"

Finally, when I put Sept 2021 in the search, while I still got the same July articles, I did get this one ABC News article  that has a similar focus to the LA Times article - who is running to replace him - but it does include this sentence:

"Mayor Eric Garcetti cannot run again in 2022 due to being termed out. He was nominated in July by President Joe Biden to serve as U.S. ambassador to India. He is expected to leave office early pending the U.S. Senate's confirmation of his appointment."

Why?  According to an August 11 LATimes article:

"Yet [Gentry O. Smith's] April nomination, like many made by President Biden for the State Department, Department of Homeland Security and elsewhere, sat stalled for months in Senate committees, where a few Republican lawmakers blocked approval.

Although nominations were blocked across the board, the State Department was hardest hit: As of Monday night, more than six months into the Biden administration, only one of the president’s ambassador picks had been approved, leaving nearly 50% of all embassies without their top official, according to the American Foreign Service Assn. Early Wednesday, a second ambassador, Kenneth Salazar for Mexico, was confirmed in a marathon Senate session."

It goes on:

Foremost among those blocking nominees is Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), who has held back as many as two dozen State Department appointees, on demands that Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken penalize all international firms and individuals involved in the construction of a Russian pipeline to Europe.

Blinken complained last week that 65 nominations were still pending a confirmation vote. Some of those, including Smith’s nomination, this week squeaked through the Senate approval process on the eve of Congress’ August recess after languishing for months.

“These are critical national security positions,” Blinken said, specifically mentioning the assistant secretary of State for diplomatic security, Smith’s designated position.

I've just started reading :KILL SWITCH THE RISE OFTHE MODERN SENATE AND THE CRIPPLING OF AMERICAN DEMOCRACY, by Adam Jentleson.  He was Senator Harry Reid's top assistant and this book is aimed as dispelling the myths around the 'sacred tradition' of the filibuster. 

I'll probably have more on that book later.  

 

Dear Senator Dan Sullivan (Again? This is getting old)

Dear Senator Sullivan,  

It appears that you have already made up your mind to vote to acquit ex-President Trump.  I don't understand that decision, which most of the Republican Senators seem determined to make.  But this is critically important so I will give you the view of one of your constituents on why you should vote too convict.

As a young man, I listened to most of the Watergate Hearings on the radio.  Let me begin with this quote from Howard Baker, Republican Vice Chair of the Watergate Investigation:

“There's only one way that my party, the Republican Party could be mortally wounded with certainty and that would be for the public to think that we Republicans don’t have the courage, the stamina, the determination to clean our own house."

I've watched four days of impeachment hearings now.  It's clear that the House team made a tight, detailed, well organized, factual case against the ex-president.  They clearly showed how his actions, since well before the election even, set up the mob that ransacked the Capitol.  They showed how he created the big lie - "if I lose, the election was a fraud."  After the election he kept up that refrain - and presented no credible evidence in 61 courts.  All the judges rejected his cases out of hand. Not just Republican judges, but judges Trump himself appointed!

Then he tried to intimidate Republican election officials in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Georgia into decertifying the elections.  He told the Georgia head of elections to just find enough votes to let him win!

Then he started telling his supporters to "Stop The Steal."  He encouraged them many times to prevent Biden from becoming president.  

Not only was the evidence they presented overwhelming, but for anyone paying attention to legitimate news the last six months, it was all stuff we knew already.  You yourself related how you and Sen. Murkowski sprinted out of the Chamber because the insurgents were knocking out the windows and banging on the doors where the House and Senate were certifying the election.  

Trump's defense attorneys made feeble attempts to reiterate their claim that "impeaching a private citizen was unconstitutional."  But we know he was impeached while he was a sitting president.  We also know that judges and other officers have been convicted after they resigned.  

They argued that his First Amendment rights were violated.  They dismissed the letter from over 100 top Constitutional lawyers, including key people from the Federalist Society, as "partisan."  It wasn't.  I'm guessing by your question today, that you will choose  "You can't impeach a private citizen" as your fig leaf to cover your vote.  It's transparent.  It won't cover what you're trying to hide.

They played five minutes of video tape of every time any Democrat had ever said "Fight" arguing that the ex-president saying it numerous times in his pre-rampage speech was equivalent.  The House team put the ex-president's words into context.  Trump's team did not.  Instead they tried to make it seem that telling people to fight for equal justice for African-Americans who are regularly being harassed and  killed by police is the same as telling an armed mob to take the Capitol and stop the certification of the election by violence.  

Some have argued that the Senate Republicans are suffering from the political version of Battered Woman Syndrome.  I assume that you know about this syndrome since you have championed the ending of abuse against women.  But let me remind you of some of the symptoms:

• learned helplessness
• refusing to leave the relationship
• believing that the abuser is powerful or knows everything
• idealizing the abuser following a cycle of abuse
• believing they deserve the abuse

Here's what some key Republicans said of Trump in 2016:

"On the campaign trail, Rand called Trump a “delusional narcissist” and a “fake conservative,” and Trump mocked his height. Rubio mocked Trump’s small hand size and called Trump a “con artist,” and Trump eviscerated  “Lil Marco.” Graham said Trump was a “kook,” “crazy,” and “unfit for office,” and Trump gave out Graham’s personal cellphone number on national television. Cruz said Trump was a “pathological liar,” a “narcissist,” and a “serial philanderer,” and Trump and basically called Cruz’s wife ugly—while accusing Cruz’s dad of being involved in the Kennedy assassination." (from The Daily Beast.) 

You yourself said you were ready to support Pence as the candidate and you publicly said you didn't vote for Trump in 2016.  

Yet all these Republican Senators, including yourself, have lined up to staunchly back Trump for four years, and the now the ex-president.  

The battered woman syndrome does seem to fit well in two particular ways.  

• Often women are afraid to get out of relationships because they fear how their men will retaliate.  
• Or they are afraid they can't afford, for economic reasons, to leave the relationship.  

That sounds pretty close to the situation of Senate Republicans.  You're afraid of retaliation by Trump and by his supporters and you are afraid of losing the economic support of Republicans in your next election.  

You've taken an oath to support the Constitution both as a Marine and as a US Senator.  You're allowing your personal interests and the peer pressure of your Republican colleagues to close your eyes to what that oath requires of you now.  The case against the ex-president is more than clear.  Trump's defense team was all smoke and mirrors.  

There is more to life than being a US Senator if that is the price for honoring your oath to office.  But you aren't up for reelection until 2026.  By then, voting to convict Trump will be respected by conservatives as well as progressives.  Or Trump will be using his acquittal to continue to claim he was robbed of the election and will still be stoking the fires of white supremacy and creating more havoc than you can imagine now.  Just as you didn't imagine the storming of the Capitol when you voted to acquit last time.

The American people know Trump should be publicly sanctioned and banned from office.  The world knows that.  And even if Republicans prevent conviction, the House's case is well preserved on video tape for future generations of Americans to see it for themselves in history classes.  And they will.  Your children and grandchildren will see it.  And they will know you didn't have the courage to honor your oaths to protect the Constitution.  They will realize that you grabbed some of the irrelevant sound bytes that Trump's lawyers offered Republicans to use to excuse their votes.  

I urge you to stop hiding and stand up front and proudly and deliberately cast your vote (mine too since you represent me in the  Senate) to convict Donald Trump.

Thank you

“There's only one way that my party, the Republican Party could be mortally wounded with certainty and that would be for the public to think that we Republicans don’t have the courage, the stamina, the determination to clean our own house."

The Watergate Hearings in 1973 were conducted by the with three Republicans and four Democrats. Below in the MacNeil/Lehrer coverage of the first day of the hearings.  It starts with an introduction to the key players and some context.  There never was an impeachment decision because Republicans told Nixon that it was clear he would be impeached and convicted.  Nixon resigned first.  

There's a striking difference from what we're seeing in the Senate these days.  I think it's very instructive to watch these hearing now as we prepare for the Senate trial of former president Trump.

Republican Sen. Howard Baker, Vice Chairman of the Hearings, talking to Robert MacNeil:

“There's only one way that my party, the Republican Party could be mortally wounded with certainty and that would be for the public to think that we Republicans don’t have the courage, the stamina, the determination to clean our own house.  So, it is not only not embarrassing, it’s an absolute requirement that we pursue every fact, wherever it leads us and that every phase that may emerge from that mosaic of fact emerge.  That we do it with enthusiasm but that we do it even handedly and that we have a fair and impartial exposition of the facts but that we establish absolute credibility as Republicans that we are going to take care of it ourselves.”

The introduction is useful, but if you want to skip it, Sen. Sam Ervin (the senior Democratic Senator from Georgia) calls the meeting to order about 9:27 on the tape.

From what I can tell, all the hearings are available from the National Archives here.