To Impeach Or Not To Impeach - Look At Some Of The Basic Questions

Yesterday I replaced this post with a video of then Rep. Lindsey Graham urging the Senate to convict Bill Clinton and explaining the broad array of wrongdoings covered by impeachment.
So let me go back to what I was originally working on.

I've been trying to identify the arguments for and against impeachment.


1.  Has he committed impeachable offenses?     

It seems to me that the Mueller Report offers us enough instances of obstruction of justice that it's clear that there are impeachable offenses.  Committing criminal acts is a much higher standard than is required for impeachment anyway.  If you listen to the Graham tape, lies, perjury, obstructing justice are all fair game.  Clinton had sexual harassment charges and then fighting those charges, which Graham called obstruction of justice.  Trump has various women he's paid to sign NDA's.  He's got unsavory money ties to Russians through Deutsche Bank and directly.  There's all the tales Michael Cohen told.  There's emolument clause issues based on foreign governments patronizing Trump properties.  The list goes on and on.

2.  What is an impeachable offense?

From Article 2, Section IV, we get the terms:  "Treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors."  Again, listen too Graham.  Trump's got lots of acts that fit into the definition he gave of high crimes at the Clinton impeachment.

Some Impeachment Facts

A.  Impeachment is just an indictment for a president.  In non-presidential situations when there appears o be enough evidence to indicate a person has committed a crime, he's indicted.  Then it goes to trial.  In this case there is plenty of evidence.  But impeachment is the process of looking at the evidence and deciding to indict.  Setting up an impeachment process doesn't mean he will be impeached, just that the evidence will be examined.  And the House will have the power to get all the relevant evidence, things the administration is refusing to share.

B.  Then if the House decides to impeach, it goes to the Senate for the trial.

I'd note that there have been three presidential impeachments in American history - Andrew Johnson, Richard Nixon, and Bill Clinton.  Johnson and Clinton were acquitted and Nixon resigned before he could be convicted.  So, no president has ever been successfully tried for impeachment.

If there is a lot of evidence of impeachable acts, it's up to the House to investigate and make the President accountable.  It's true that prosecutors also weigh in the likelihood of conviction.  They don't want to lose a case because there isn't enough evidence.  But an impeachable president does more damage than most un-indicted but likely guilty criminals.

3.  Is impeachment politically feasible?

This seems to be the key question Democrats are debating, at least as the media portray things.  So let's look at it closely

A.  That could mean, if the House impeaches him, would the Senate convict?  If Trump and whoever else can keep the Senate Republicans under control like they have so far, the answer would be 'no.'  But if the American public were exposed to hearings that discussed the Mueller findings in detail, not to mention other issues, there's no telling how popular opinion would go.  So far, relatively few people have read to Report.  I confess to having read only some parts of it.  But I did read carefully most of  Seth Abramson's Proof of Collusion which spells out much of what's in the Report.  (A followup book, Proof of Conspiracy comes out soon.

Click Here For The Mueller Report.

The Report is 182 pages plus  Appendix A - Letter of Appointment of Special Counsel (1page) Appendix B - Glossary (14 pages)  Appendix C - Written Questions to be answered by President Trump (12 pages) and Responses from President Trump (12 pages) (total 23 pages)  Appendix D - SPECIAL COUNSEL'S OFFICE TRANSFERRED, REFERRED, AND COMPLETED CASES (6 pages)   There's a total of 226 pages, some blank, some redacted, some just lists.   If you read just ten pages a day,  you could read the whole report by June 23.

B.  Would losing the impeachment battle in the Senate weaken the Democrats before the 2020 election?   Depends on what the American people hear and see of the impeachment hearings and the Senate trial.  And unless Netflix makes a Mueller Report series, without an impeachment, most Americans will never know exactly what's in the Report and how damning it is.  (See Box above with link to report and ten page a day suggestion.)

C.  Will the Democrats be blasted for wasting time on impeachment instead of passing legislation?  The Republicans will accuse them of not passing any legislation no matter what they do.  Very little substantive legislation has been passed in the last few sessions of Congress anyway.  This isn't a reason not to impeach.

D.  Is it too early to start an impeachment because there isn't enough evidence?  Well, part of what you do at an impeachment is gather evidence.  Impeachment won't be quick not matter when it starts.  One could argue that starting now would mean that Congress will be ready with the evidence they need in a timely manner.  If they wait until Nancy Pelosi determines the time is right, then

E.  If the Russians, Iranians, North Koreans, Israelis and others interfere with the election in 2020, impeachment (unless successful) won't matter anyway unless the Democrats are able to fight such interference.  If they don't impeach, they won't have near as much evidence of election tampering than if they impeach and subpoena the evidence.

F.  Balancing doing what's right with doing what's expedient.  Sometimes we make ethical compromises because of the practical consequences.  It's a basic philosophical dilemma.  One could argue that it's a hard decision to make.

There is plenty of evidence that the president has committed impeachable acts. It's Congress' duty to keep the president accountable.  So in a politically neutral world, impeaching the president is the moral and correct thing to do.

But should the Democrats do that if it would guarantee they would lose the next election?  If we could know that for sure, I'd say probably not.

But there's no way of knowing for sure that impeachment would cost the election.  In a situation of uncertainty, then the only right and moral decision is to do the right thing - impeach.   I would argue that, as happened with Nixon, the public airing of all of Trump's wrong doings would help push a comfortable majority over the edge into agreeing that impeachment was the right thing.  Not impeaching would convince the cynical non-voters that they were right to not vote.

G.  Whatever the Democrats do, they have to work hard to make sure that the elections aren't lost because of foreign and domestic propaganda, voter suppression and tampering:

• They expose and prevent and counteract foreign propaganda on social media and elsewhere, as well as far right attacks (like the Swift-Boat attacks on John Kerry.)
• They expose and prevent voter suppression, vote tampering, and hacking of voting machines.  And when these things occur, they are all over them gathering proof and refusing to concede until it is clear the vote was clean.

At Least Republicans Don't Have The Supreme Court As An Excuse To Vote For A Madman In 2020

Trying to find some silver linings and it occurred to me that in 2016 there were lots of reports of conservatives holding their nose to vote for Trump with the excuse that it was about the Supreme Court (more often than not, about abortion.)
Well, with a 5-4 majority, that excuse should be off the table.  But then that assumes some modicum of decency and reason.

That's all.  It's Saturday.  Get off your computer and get some fresh air and make the world a better place.  Try smiling or at least nodding as you pass by a stranger.  Add positive energy to the world.

Heartland Forum - Chance for Serious Conversation with Elizabeth Warren, Julían Castro, John Delaney, Amy Klobuchar

When the Republicans had a dozen or more candidates for the 2016 presidential election, the debates were pretty shallow and demeaning.  Having Trump as a bomb-thrower in every debate didn't help.  And the worst of the Republicans is the candidate that party picked.

And some are predicting the 2020 Democratic race will be the same.  I'm hopeful they will actually be inspiring.  The Democratic candidates I've heard from already all have much more positive messages and programs to address the problems.  I've already posted about two lesser known candidates - Andrew Yang and Pete Buttagieg - and a little on Beto O'Rourke.

Here's a video of four more of the candidates.  They each get about 30 minutes on the stage without other candidates.  They each get to make some opening remarks and then they get questions from the audience.

I can't see a way to embed the video, so you have to go there on your own.

I'm not taking any stands on any of these people.  I'll just note that Elizabeth Warren still impresses me.  She comes from a poor family but made her way to the US Senate.  She hasn't forgotten her roots, yet she has done her homework and understands the problems of extreme capitalism and doesn't shrink from challenging the largest corporations.

I know very little about Julían Castro, a former Housing and Urban Development Cabinet Secretary, but he's smart, articulate, and has a good handle on the issues addressed.  

John Delaney, comes from a business background and is a former Congressman.  Didn't know about him.

Amy Klobochar impressed me in the Kavanaugh hearings.  Her prosecutor background was obvious in her questions.  She was polite, but firm.  In this forum we get to hear her on other issues.

Tim Ryan, Congressman from Youngstown, Ohio who apparently is not yet an announced candidate also appears on the stage.

This is two hours long, but I'd argue it's a good way to start getting to know these candidates and hearing their ideas and programs.  Watch each candidate at one sitting, or while your making dinner, cleaning up, or doing exercise.  This is a better use of your time than watching Netflix.  (I know there are other streaming sites, but I just decided I can't watch all the 'best' shows and Netflix has enough.  And Prime is a way to help Jeff Bezos create a new market place where he gets a cut of every transaction without adding value.

So, start your presidential check list where you keep track of their important experience and education and stands on the issues.

Limits Of Religious Freedom, How Do We Know Who Is Good?, And How Many Wheelchairs Do Airlines Lose Or Break A Month?

The title doesn't necessarily reflect the aim of the authors of these three stories, but it does reflect what I took from them.


1.  Limits of Religious Freedom.   This is as good a description of how I view freedom of religion's boundaries.

From Washington Post article on South Bend, Indiana mayor, Pete Buttigieg,  running for president.  The article also offers a way to pronounce his name offered by his husband.

“Our right to practice our faith freely is respected up to the point where doing so involves harming others,” he said. “One of the problems with RFRA* was it authorized harming others so long as you remembered to use your religion as an excuse.”

*Indiana’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act in 2015

Of course, this still leaves lots of room for debate on what 'harming others' entails.

The article also discusses Buttigieg's own religious faith (it's not uninformed) and his bid to get the religious left more active in the next round of elections.


2.  Judging People In The Era Of Non-Stop Headline News

This next one is about James Comey and it raises interesting questions about who becomes a hero and who doesn't in our modern age.  It seems - she doesn't say this, but it's my takeaway - we often judge people nowadays by one action rather than the totality of their lives.  (And you can also question why we're judging other people rather than working on ourselves.)

From the Bulwark:  Why Do We Love To Hate James Comey?

"Comey has six children, all with the same woman. He has been married to his wife since roughly the Pliocene epoch and in his spare time they serve as emergency foster parents for homeless kids. No, really. He explained to NPR that, as foster parents, they often get more love out of these relationships than they put into them, even. “Little boy who came to us born a month premature in a homeless shelter to a drug-addicted mother and born in very very difficult circumstances so we got him right out of the hospital,” Comey said of one of his many foster children. That baby boy was later adopted, but, as NPR reports, the Comeys still watch him a couple times a week. “[W]e’ve stayed very close,” Comey said. “We’ll look after him his whole life.”
As I said: A good man. A fine human being.
But good people can still be annoying as fuck and James Comey is proof of this."

3.  The importance of diversity in the legislature.  From the LA Times:

"The largest U.S. airlines damaged or lost a daily average of 26 wheelchairs and scooters used by disabled passengers in December, according to a report championed by a lawmaker who lost both legs while serving in Iraq.
From Dec. 4 to Dec. 31, the 12 largest carriers damaged or lost 701 passengers’ wheelchairs and scooters, according to the first report of its kind from the U.S."

It took a wheelchair bound Senator - Tammy Duckworth of Illinois who lost her mobility in a helicopter crash in Iraq - to require the FAA to report such losses.

It took a disabled US Senator to get attention paid to this problem.  I don't know how many people bring their wheelchairs to the airport each day.  I know there's usually five to ten waiting for passengers when I get off planes, so the total number of wheelchairs might be huge and 26 per day isn't that high a percentage.  But it's HUGE for the person who needs the chair.  Can you imagine being dependent on your wheelchair to get around and find out when you got off the plane, yours had been lost or damaged?


Enjoy your weekend!

How Social Media Allow Fringe Candidate To Get An Audience - Andrew Yang In San Francisco

I don't even know who Andrew Yang is.  I'll look him up in a second.  But below is a video of him giving a talk on the street with a Twitter transcript/commentary.  (Double click on the Tweet to see the whole thread.)

By popular demand, #YangGang #Yang2020 event in SF https://t.co/0r41OkGF3N

— 🤖 Sonya Mann 🎀 (@sonyaellenmann) March 16, 2019

Here's a long interview with Yang which he begins by talking about universal basic income and cites Alaska as an example of it working. I hope our current fight over the PFD doesn't "prove" to people that this idea won't work. Though it sure shows us that some people only think immediate, short term, and 'that's my money, not the state's." But that's another discussion.







What I like about all these young Democratic presidential candidates is that they are bringing to the table important ideas that the older, politically conservative (and by that I don't mean ideologically, but rather people not willing to take risks, people who only back ideas after they look at the polls) have kept off the agenda.

[As I listen to the rest of this two hour video, he talks about the places Trump won are the places that jobs got replaced by robots.  Then he said he went to Washington and started talking to politicians about this and they said, "We can't talk about that."  about 49 minutes in.]

Elizabeth Warren's pushing breaking up the tech industry.  Kamala Harris is talking about reparations for African-Americans in the sense of help dealing with generational trauma.  Beto O'Rourke champions immigrants as necessary to the prosperity and vibrance of the US  ("El Paso has been the safest city in America, not despite immigrants, but because of immigrants.").  Jay Inslee is focused on Climate Change.   You get the point.   Let's get these issues out there so the American people start seriously talking about other options.

And let's hope the candidates continue to care more about making this a much better country and world, than they care about who is ultimately in the White House.  Let's hope they stay positive and see themselves as a team, and may the best candidate be their leader from the White House.

One last note:  This is not an endorsement of Yang or any other candidate.  I like the ideas they are all raising.  As we get to know them better, we'll find out more about their strengths and weaknesses.  But I'm pushing them to all work together as a team.

Virginia Redistricting Reform, The First Big Step

The US Constitution requires a decennial census in order to determine the current population so that states can be allowed an appropriate number of representatives in Congress.  Once the number is set, states redraw the maps.  It's at this point that gerrymandering becomes a potential problem.

Since Alaska has only one House member, that part is moot.  But our redistricting board maps the districts for the State House and Senate.  Right now, the Governor gets to choose two members of the board, the Speaker of the House and Senate President each choose one, and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court also gets to choose one.    That's a total of five.  And it's been a pretty partisan project in the past.

A number of states have made changes.  It would behoove Alaskans to look at what's all going on and think about a better system for us as well.


Virginia took a big step to ending partisan gerrymandering in redistricting.  From One Virginia 2021:

Here are key elements in the reform passed by the House of Delegates and the Senate on Saturday:

• ESTABLISHES A REDISTRICTING COMMISSION OF 8 LEGISLATORS AND 8 CITIZENS, WITH A CITIZEN SERVING AS CHAIR

• REQUIRES FULL TRANSPARENCY OF ALL MEETINGS, MINUTES AND DATA

• INCLUDES SPECIFIC PROTECTIONS FOR MINORITY COMMUNITIES

• INCLUDES IMPARTIAL REVIEW IN THE SELECTION OF CITIZEN MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION

• EXCLUDES UNELECTED CONGRESSIONAL OR GENERAL ASSEMBLY EMPLOYEES FROM THE COMMISSION

• GUARDS AGAINST PARTISAN GERRYMANDERING BY REQUIRING A SUPERMAJORITY OF COMMISSIONERS FOR APPROVAL OF DISTRICT MAPS

• PROVIDES THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY ONLY UP-OR-DOWN VOTES ON THE COMMISSION’S MAPS, WITHOUT AMENDMENTS

• EXCLUDES THE GOVERNOR FROM THE APPROVAL PROCESS, WHICH WOULD THROW OFF THE BALANCE CREATED BY THE ABOVE FRAMEWORK

The post says it still has to be passed again by next year's Virginia General Assembly and by the voters in November 2020.   Here's a slightly different take from WTOP.

Beto O'Rourke Goes On A Road Trip

Beto O'Rourke's blog offers an introspective, somewhat introverted voice as he contemplates what his next steps should be.  An LA Times piece on O'Rourke's maybe yes, maybe no candidacy for president mentioned the blog on a platform I didn't know about (Medium), so I checked it out.

He offers himself as wanting to learn about the people he meets rather than talking about himself.  Last week he was traveling. Before this trip, his last post was in December.  The next post is January 16 and he's in Tucumcari, New Mexico.

The next morning I ran. Just a couple of miles. Down 66, then through neighborhoods, past the History Museum. My leg has really been bothering me since the campaign and so I had stopped running for a while. This was my first run in more than a month. Felt good, running in new shoes. 

Have been stuck lately. In and out of a funk. My last day of work was January 2nd. It’s been more than twenty years since I was last not working. Maybe if I get moving, on the road, meet people, learn about what’s going on where they live, have some adventure, go where I don’t know and I’m not known, it’ll clear my head, reset, I’ll think new thoughts, break out of the loops I’ve been stuck in.

I'm trying to piece together the trip on maps.  From Tucumcari he stays on 54 to Liberal, Texas.   Driving alone it appeared.  It's not clear how many planned stops there were.  His great grandparents had lived in Tucumcari.  In Bucklin, Kansas, where they were married, he went to the library to find their wedding certificate.  He reads about Bucklin history and offers tidbits, like this one in his Jan 17 post:

"From 1923: 'Visit by the Klan at revival services of Methodist Church. 5 members of the Ku Klux Klan, wearing the robes of the order, visited church and contributed $50 but refused the invitation to stay for the services.'”

January 18, 2019, he's in Ulysses, Kansas where he's in a funk.  This is a long quote, but I think it all needs to be there to get the context.

"I drove back to the hotel, passing the First Baptist church where kids were throwing snow and slush at each other in the light of the headlamps of their parent’s car. Made me think of our kids, and I missed them. Added to the low altitude I was experiencing. 

Maybe I’d been hoping for some kind of connection that day and hadn’t found it. All the conversations had been pleasant, everyone was kind, but there hadn’t been anything more than that. The waiters at Alejandro’s were nice but they were finishing their shift, they wanted to eat their dinner after having served everyone else all night and close up.
I called Amy. Kids were in the car, she was a little distracted, we didn’t connect either. Maybe you could meet people at a bar she said as we hung up. 

I pulled into the bar next to the hotel and started to feel self conscious. They aren’t going to want some stranger from out of town at their place. I walked in and took a seat at the bar, said a quick, probably nervous, hello to everyone and ordered a beer. Pro forma acknowledgement from the three or four guys who were already there. 

I focused on the college basketball game, thinking I’ll finish this beer and then get out of here. I told myself at least I tried. 

And then two seats down to my right the guy says do people ever tell you that you look like Beto O’Rourke? 

I said yes, all the time. 

The guy next to him says who the hell is Beto O’Rourke? 

First guy says oh he ran against Ted Cruz in Texas, and goes on to talk about Beto O’Rourke and I’m worried that it’s going to get weird and so I say sorry I meant to say that I am Beto O’Rourke. 

No shit! Laughter."

I'm thinking, "How do you write a blog that's honest, somewhat self-revealing, yet doesn't make you look foolish or disingenuous?"  Of course, I think about those things all the time as a blogger but for me it's about giving context for why I think something.  I'm not running for office, nor do I intend to, so what I'm writing won't be scrutinized by opposition research teams looking for pictures of me in blackface or admissions that could be twisted for political gain by others.

The impression is that he's writing all this himself, like Trump tweets.  (The analogy is only about who does the writing and editing.)  But clearly he's making points about issues - like the story of Klu Klux Klan visit to the church above.

The January 20 post has him arriving at a scheduled visit at Pueblo (Colorado) Community College where he meets with students:

What followed was one of these transcendent moments in public life… something so raw and honest that you want to hold on to it, remember every word… a flow between people. But going through my notes right now, I know that my recounting of the words and themes won’t do it justice. 

Raw. People adding to what the previous speaker had said, or challenging what someone else shared, respectfully but directly. Moved to speak up, to share, to add. At first politely raising hands and asking questions. And then, just speaking, having a conversation and not asking polite questions but sharing experience, suggesting solutions.

He goes on at length about the different people who spoke and what they had to say.  Was he really alone and taking notes on all these people and what they said?  Impressive.

The next post comes four days later (January 24) where he gets to the Taos Pueblo Day School in Taos, New Mexico.  An excerpt: 

"She told me about movie nights back then. Since the village had no electricity (and still doesn’t), movies were shown in the school gym. She said it’s hard to believe this now, but they’d often show Westerns, cowboys and Indians movies. And she said all of us kids, not knowing any better, would be cheering for the cowboys! She made the point that back then, the school suppressed the culture of the Pueblo, confusing children about their identity and roots. How dangerous for their development, their sense of self and their possibilities. And yet, that didn’t stop Mildred. Not only is she now teaching Tiwa at the school, she also opens her home in the summer for language classes and as the point of departure for nature walks with the children of the community. 

It made me think of the evolution of dual language education in El Paso. In the same schools where kids were punished for speaking Spanish in the 1960s, they are now being encouraged to speak Spanish, in fact to learn throughout the day in every subject in both English and Spanish."

Again, he recounts many people and the conversations and how good it felt to be connected to people who want to make everyone's lives better.

"We’re all connected, related, part of one another’s lives through the stories we tell ourselves and each other. For good and for bad. Our long memories hold the stories of what our people accomplished, but they also hold the prejudices, the injustices, the harm that we’ve received from others. Our short term memories can forget the kindness most recently rendered, our vision can become focused on the divisions and lose sight of the way up and out. And there is always someone, usually on cable TV or Twitter, to remind you how small or stupid you’re supposed to feel. Our side is truly American. Yours, not so much."

That's the last post.  I supposed being on the road, staying at hotels by himself each night, gave him plenty of time to write these long posts.  From Taos back to El Paso is an easy day's ride, so maybe he went from their home and life is more hectic so he hasn't written more.

Other politicians I've followed, have been on Twitter and that's a much, much different medium.  I'm going to link to this blog on the side column and see how it progresses.

Better Than Calexit - California Should Export Voters To Swing States

There were two opinion pieces in yesterday's LA Times discussing some Californians' interest in possibly seceding from the US.  A law professor in Indiana who says California will always be home, considers some of the issues with his heart on his sleeve.  A political science professor from UC San Diego uses logic and practicalities to oppose the idea.

In Alaska, the secession sentiment has always been around.  We even have an Alaska Independence Party.   And given our geographic isolation from the rest of the US, it makes some geographic sense.  The Daily Mail reported a petition to the president to have Alaska secede and rejoin Russia.  Was that one of the earlier Russian attempts to cyberjack the US?

I've heard a couple people recently talking about joining Canada which makes a lot more sense, but we know that won't happen either.


But here's my suggestion to California.  Export excess Democratic voters to swing states.

Clinton beat Trump in California by over three million votes!


In Michigan, Clinton, as of November 10, was behind by 13,000 votes only.

In Florida Clinton lost by only 120,000 votes.

In Pennsylvania Clinton lost by only 67,000 votes.

In Wisconsin Clinton lost by only 27,000 votes.

You get the picture.  California had more than enough excess votes to change the results in these four states and several more.  That's assuming that the voting machines weren't hacked.  If they were, then none of this would be necessary.

click to enlarge and focus

California Democrats could send out electoral missionaries so to speak who would go live in these states long enough to be eligible to vote.  Everything is perfectly legal.  No need to change the constitution - though that effort could continue.






You don't even have to be there a long time.  Michigan's proof of residency seems to require about 90 days.






















In Pennsylvania, best as I can tell, you only have to have lived there for 30 days.

"11. Declaration I declare that 

• I am a United States citizen and will have been a citizen for at least 1 month on the day of the next election.
• I will be at least 18 years old on the day of the next election.
• I will have lived at the address in section 5 for at least 30 days before the election.
• I am legally qualified to vote.

Wisconsin requires that you've been a resident for 28 days, but there's a clause - "with no intent of moving."

Florida has a similar assumption about intent to stay.

"Legal residence-Permanent. Legal residency is not defined in law. However, over the years, the courts and the Florida Department of State/Division of Elections’ have construed legal residency to be where a person mentally intends to make his or her permanent residence.1 Evidence of such intent can come from items or activities such as obtaining a Florida driver’s license2, paying tax receipts, paying bills for residency (light, water, garbage service) and receiving mail at address, claiming the property as homestead,3 declaring the county as domicile, and doing other activities indicative or normally associated with home life. Therefore, legal residence is a convergence of intent and fact. Once residency is established for voting purposes, it is presumptively valid or current until evidence shows otherwise. See Op. Atty Gen. Fla. 055-216 (August 26, 1955). A business address is not typically a satisfactory legal residential address but if the person resides there despite the zoning ordinance, the address could become the person’s legal residential address.4"

So people spreading the gospel of Democracy there ought to make at least a one or two year commitment.  But that's how I originally conceived this anyway - a one or two year mission.  It wasn't until I saw the short time requirements that other possibilities arose.  No, let's do this honestly.  No one can be sure how long they will live in any one place anyway.  One or two years is clearly long enough.

A year or two in Wisconsin or Florida to save the United States?  It's a much better deal than going to Iraq and probably would do more to save American democracy than fighting in Iraq or any other world hotspots.


Californians CAN live in other states. They can survive.  They're much more resilient than, say, New Yorkers who don't even know how to drive or that there is civilization beyond Manhattan.   A large number of Californians are from other states anyway.  They can speak the local dialect and blend right in.  It's easier than trying to change the minds of Trump voters (though I expect Trump will do that himself in the next four years.)

After their two year commitment is up and the 2020 election is over, they can decide to stay or move back to California, though many may find that living in communities where they can walk or bike to work is kind of nice.