My Indonesian Yacht Cruise Was A Raft Trip On The Yentna With Ted Turner

[For those who are used to Twitter and need the this to read this in 20 seconds, skip down to the bolded question, What does this have to do with yachts cruising Indonesian islands? For those that want some context (and a little history on how the Anchorage Assembly first got onto cable, start at the beginning.]

 

Michael Shamberg's Guerilla Television had put video literacy into my life goals.  It pointed out that we are taught to read and write at school and given some skills in recognizing when written language is being used to manipulate us. (This was the 70s when schools still did that.  I think many still do, but I'm guessing a lot don't.)  

Shamberg's premise was that we were getting so much news via television that we needed that same sort of training in videography.  The book was a treatise on what was wrong with how news was created and a citizens handbook for how to make people's videos and how citizen created videos would change the world.  This was at a time when video cameras were pretty bulky and pricey, and there weren't any outlets for citizens to show their videos. There weren't even any Blockbusters yet.

I'd say Shamberg was pretty visionary. Eventually cameras on phones gave everyone a pocket video recorder and YouTube offered everyone a people's theater where anyone could show their videos and anyone could watch them.  Social media have extended the audience even further.  

And so when cable television was beginning to show up I was paying attention.  I was reading cable industry journals and even went to a few conferences on cable public access.  I was especially excited about the contracts around the country that required the cable companies to set up public access video studios with cameras and editing equipment so people could make their own videos. They also required public access channels to play those citizen made videos on. Sure, the audience was limited to cable viewers, but it was a step in the right direction. 

Multivision had bid for the contract in Anchorage.  This was 1982 or 83.  I was working on loan from the University to the Municipality of Anchorage for a couple of years.  I read the Multivision proposal and was dismayed that there was no provision for a public access video studio or a channel for people's video.  I kept telling Cathy Allen, Mayor Knowles' chief of staff (I think that was her title) that the Municipality should be demanding that such provisions - modeled from Outside cable agreements - be included in Multivisions' contract.  She kept treating me like I was crazy.  I kept sending her memos (yeah, email was not available yet)  about the Alaska Public Utility  Commission's meetings on cable.  One was coming up soon where there would be public testimony. On the day of the meeting I got a call to come up to Allen's office right away.  She'd just come back from a national conference and a city manager from a big city had sat her down and told her how important it was to have public access in cable contracts. Nothing I hadn't been telling her, but he was more credible to her than I had been.  So yes, I could go to the meeting and represent the Muni that afternoon.  

Fortunately, I'd been reading the proposal and comparing the prices they were proposing for monthly subscriptions and had lots of information about public access in other cities.  

So there I was, at the last minute, running down the street to the meeting.  There weren't a lot of people there and they all seemed to be Multivisions boosters.  Then my turn to talk came.  I nervously compared Multivisions prices to Outside prices and said something like, "I understand it is more expensive to operate in Alaska than it is Outside, but it's NOT three times as expensive!"  I also talked about how most cities were requiring cable companies to have public access studies and a public access channel.  And I sat down.

At the next break, I was mobbed by six or seven people asking me, essentially, "who the hell are you?" did  I really represented the Muni.  

As time went by I was back arguing that Multivisions should be televising the Assembly meetings live.  Not possible they said.  At that time they were meeting in the Muni's Tudor Road buildings and they said it wasn't wired for cable.  It would have to wait until the new Loussac Library opened.  

But for some reason the Assembly  had to move out of the Tudor building and temporarily went to the new Convention Center on 5th Avenue.  And I knew that building was wired.  By that time I'd gotten some others to join me and we had set up a non-profit for this project - something like Anchorage Media Access Group.  I lobbied the Assembly members and they agreed to a six month trial and allotted a paltry sum - maybe $3000 for that.  Our non-profit sent out an RFP to every third video business in the Anchorage media resources book.  We got two bids.  One was way beyond the money the Assembly offered.  The other was a budding videographer who agreed to do it at a ridiculously low price with the help of volunteers (ourselves and a few others) who would staff the cameras for him.  

At first, he balked. He couldn't trust his expensive cameras to volunteers.   But he relented when we pointed out that he couldn't afford to do it any other way.  And so the Assembly began its six months experiment being broadcast live on Anchorage cable.  

While Assembly members had had a number of doubts - it would lead to grandstanding, those without cable wouldn't have access, etc. - after several weeks they were all won over.  They had so many people say they saw them on cable and they had people showing up saying they were watching at home and had to come down to testify.  At the end of the six months they approved a much larger budget and our videographer got the contract and we stopped having to supply volunteers.  We disbanded our non-profit and gave the Assembly back the $500 we still had left and asked them to use it to support televising the Assembly. 

 

What does this have to do with yachts cruising Indonesian islands? 

Somewhere along this cable path, I got an invitation from Multivision to go on a float trip on the Yentna River with Ted Turner whom they were bringing up to Alaska.  That sounded very cool, but unlike a certain US Supreme Court justice, I didn't consider accepting for a second.  

I understood that I hadn't been randomly selected for this honor, but that it had to do with my advocacy for a better deal for Anchorage citizens and my advocacy for getting the Anchorage Assembly live on cable. And that this might be their way to get me to tone it down or who knows?.  I thanked them and said I couldn't accept their offer. 

Clarence Thomas, on the other hand, seems to have had no qualms about accepting annual half-a-million dollar vacations and didn't see it necessary to report these on his annual financial disclosure forms.  

The wealthy Republicans have been smart and have taken a long range planning approach to maintain power. When Bork got turned down for the Court, they apparently realized democracy was no longer enough.  

Lobbying has been a traditional way to get legislators to vote against the interests of their constituents.  This relationship is strengthened by campaign contributions. And secrecy. But even better would be owning a Supreme Court that decided their way if the legislature wouldn't.  

The Democrats have not been as Machiavellian and were not very good as spotting the stealth takeover  of the Supreme Court the Republicans, through the Federalist Society, had worked on for so many years.  

And with Trump as president, they succeeded in taking over the Court.  Justice Kennedy abruptly resigned to make room for Kavanaugh.  I'm still certain there's a cloak and dagger story about how Kennedy was convinced to step down, that would include his son's work for Deutsche Bank, the last major bank still willing to lend money to Trump for his projects. And Justin Kennedy was the man who made those loans happen. 

But since Trump essentially turned the job of picking his court nominees over to the Federalist Society, it's pretty clear that they had something to do with Kennedy's resignation as well.  The first link is to a speech by Sen. Whitehouse - the Senate's most active and vocal observer of how the Federalist Society has managed the sharp lurch to the right of the Supreme Court.  But for those of you who need a different source, here's a report from The Hill.  Speculation?  Sure.  But a lot of clues point in the right direction. And like Thomas' vacations with the Crows, I'm pretty certain there's lots we don't yet know.  At least there are facts and motives pointing in this direction, which is way more than the Republicans have for every major scandal they scream about daily.  

Breakdown of Norms

From Oxford Bibliographies:

"[Norms] are most commonly defined as rules or expectations that are socially enforced. Norms may be prescriptive (encouraging positive behavior; for example, “be honest”) or proscriptive (discouraging negative behavior; for example, “do not cheat”)."

Basically, norms are the rules that are socially, rather than legally, enforced.  When people break the norms, public opinion is the force that 'rules' the consequences.  Politicians lose elections, officials resign their posts.  

But we're in a period where Republicans, particularly, are no longer constrained by norms.  They're no longer constrained by laws. (Sure, politicians on both sides have fudged the law forever, but they did it clandestinely, not flagrantly out in the open.)  While Trump is by far the most egregious example, his Republican colleagues in the House and Senate have gone along.  The Senate had the power to remove him from office after the House voted for impeachment.  Twice.  

They didn't.  Instead, they rammed through the nominations of Kavanaugh and Barrett.  

Not all the Republicans are completely craven, but they are all much more interested in their reelections than they are in maintaining traditional norms of appearing to support the public interest, 

And Fox News, particularly, has worked closely with Trump to make sure their viewers are fed the stories they (the viewers) want to hear, no matter how much they deviate from truth.  Those Republicans who stood up to Trump, even slightly, have either retired (rather than face Trump's cult in the primaries) or they were defeated in the primaries.  Alaska's Senator Murkowski is the only exception I know of.  She used a write-in campaign to overcome a primary defeat in 2012.  In 2022, Alaska's new Ranked ChoiceVoting went into effect, which eliminated closed party primaries and put all candidates for each office into one primary. 

The wealthy Right Wingers know that their ideas are not popular with the voters.  Ending abortion, no restrictions on guns, racial discrimination, election manipulation are all opposed by healthy majorities of the general population. 

To win, Republicans have to rig the game.  Pack the Supreme Court with judges who rule in favor of business most of the time.  Gerrymander state voting districts to get far more Republicans elected even when the actual numbers of both parties are much more even.  Suppress the votes of minorities and the young in as many ways as they can think of.  Oppose all bills to help overcome the disparities in wealth, access to food, housing, education, and health care. In fact oppose all legislation that might be good for the country that Biden could take credit for.  And now we're seeing the truly power obsessed trying to control women's rights to decide their own health care, even banning out of state travel for those seeking abortions.  

With a strong Supreme Court majority, Republican governors are writing laws so far out of the bounds of US social norms and violate decades old Supreme Court precedents.  They are doing this in anticipation of the new Federalist Society judges overturning all those precedents as just as they overturned Roe v. Wade.  Voting rights?  We're back to a post Civil War Supreme Court that used States' Rights to allow disenfranchisement of blacks and lynchings among other terrible practices.  

And when Clarence Thomas says in his brief official statement that he read the rules and consulted with others and they said he didn't have to report transportation, he's telling me that he has NO business being a US Supreme Court Justice.  

• First, this is so extreme an example - half a million dollar vacations for 20 years!  Any reasonable person knows this sort of 'gift' needs to be reported  (I didn't have to go to law school to know accepting a pricey trip with a celebrity was the wrong thing to do.)
• Second, if Thomas has trouble interpreting such obvious and simple disclosure rules for judicial gifts, then he is hardly qualified to interpret the US Constitution. 
• Third, if he is capable of such interpretation, then he's intentionally flouting the rules and the norms for his own advantage.  In this case his perceived best interest was non-disclosure. One would assume that is also how he often interprets the law and the Constitution in his Supreme Court decisions.  
• Fourth, hanging out with the Crows and their yachting friends helps to shape his ideas of his own best interests and appropriate interpretations of the Constitution.

CONCLUSIONS

Like most such issues, this one is entangled in many overlapping contexts of law, of history, of politics, of economics, of ethics, that it is difficult to discuss it without either leaving important points out or without getting so long and complicated people won't finish.  

A key issue I'm leaving out is accountability of career and elected public officials.  Of course Trump and Fox have so violated societal norms of behavior and of truth telling that we seem to be in a completely different place than we were five or six years ago.  Though another part of me believes that the craziness we hear these days has always existed.  But today's technology enables much more of it to be seen and heard by the public.  

If that's true, the good news is that all this ugliness is being exposed - from police brutality to overt racism (OK, those two are probably intertwined), to sexual abuse, etc.  The bad news is those with norm-violating behavior and thoughts have found support for their anti-democracy desires.  

Before the Republicans get ultimate control of the courts and can manipulate all elections, we need to get all the folks who are still within traditional norms, but have given up on voting, to go vote.  There are still tens of millions of people who have come up with excuses not to vote.  (And this is also in part due to the Right's propaganda about how terrible government is, Democrats are, and how corrupt elections are.)  

Those who want Democracy to carry on have an obligation to get everyone who doesn't normally vote, to vote in the next few elections.  And the Republicans' extreme power grabbing - abortions bans, LGBTQ+ baiting, anti-Semitism, book banning, expulsion of duly elected legislators are all helping to get those voters to the polls in the next elections.   

We need enough Democrats in state legislatures and in Congress to overcome Republican attempts to turn the US into an authoritarian regime favoring wealthy white males who distort the Bible to further their interests.  

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. 

Blogging During A Pandemic And Insurrection

1.  John Brown and Harper's Ferry

From History:

"Abolitionist John Brown leads a small group on a raid against a federal armory in Harpers Ferry, Virginia (now West Virginia), in an attempt to start an armed revolt of enslaved people and destroy the institution of slavery."

 This incident is in every American history textbook.  STOP  My students knew that if they wrote a sentence like that, I would underline it and write something like:  "Have you looked at every American history textbook?  

So, of course I had to see what I could find to answer that question.  I suspect one would have to sample as many US history books as one could gather and read through them.  (I did something like that in an article about the lack of Native American Law in public administration textbooks.)  In answer to that question I did find some related sites.  One is by a history teacher writing about how to use Harper's Ferry as a lesson. He writes:

"What the Textbooks Say

Brown’s raid often appears in the narrative of the Civil War as the point of no return—the moment in which the country’s deep divide between free and slave interests polarized with the injection of violence. Textbooks tend to describe the responses to Brown’s raid and trial in binary terms, with Northerners and Southerners displaying unified, and starkly opposite, reactions."

That doesn't answer the question, but does let us know it's a topic in many history textbooks both in the North and the South.  

Magazine of History looks at John Brown as an chance to teach history, not through the memorization of names and dates, but as an opportunity to explore difficult and ever present moral tensions.  

Although the institution of slavery was purged in the crucible of the American Civil War, John Brown's determination to expose and end chattel slavery still resonates. The multiple legacies of slavery and questions about the efficacy of violence as a tool for change in a democratic society continually bring historians and teachers back to the complicated life of John Brown. When students consider Brown's contributions to the American narrative, lines between advocacy and criminality, contrasts between intensity and obsession, and differences between democratic ideals and harsh reality are brought to the surface. To this day, artists, authors, historians, political activists, and creators of popular culture maintain a fascination with the antebellum rights-warrior and his death.

Wow.  I was planning an array of short comments in this post, and already I've gotten carried away on this first one.  But as I think about those who plundered the Capitol Wednesday, I have to think about Harper's Ferry and the fact that this nation is still divided over the same questions that led to Harper's Ferry.  While slavery has been abolished (but not completely eliminated if we consider things like sex trafficking and even prison labor, and some might suggest people who have no choice but to take minimum wage jobs), the belief that some people are inherently superior to other people based on skin color or ethnicity or religion is still capable of stirring people to violent attempts to overthrow the rule of law.  Just as the belief that everyone deserves to be treated by police with the same respect and the same level of force based on the real inherent danger to the police and the public got people out into the streets all summer.  

When John Brown took up arms, slavery was still legal in the United States.  His cause was to overturn those laws.  As much as I want to believe that slavery is inherently evil and that racism is evil, there are tens of millions of people who either disagree or think these issues are subordinate to other values they hold.  

2.  Both Energized And Drained by Zoom

Thursday I was in front of my screen from 3-3:30 watching Bridgman/Packer's presentation to APAP.  

"The Association of Performing Arts Professionals is the national service, advocacy and membership organization for the live performing arts field. APAP is dedicated to developing and supporting a robust performing arts presenting, booking and touring industry and the professionals who work within it."

My understanding is that every year they have artists - in this case dancers - perform for people who book acts to various venues around the country.  This year it was done virtually and Bridgman/Packer invited us to sit in.  Bridgman/Packer is a dance duo that totally dazzled me when I first saw them perform in Anchorage.  We've sent a modest check each year to support their work - it's criminal how geniuses in the arts have to scrape by.  Here's the blog post I wrote when we first saw them.  I was trying not to give anything away.  But the magic of what they do is combining live dancing with prerecorded dancing, use of screens and shadows.  It sounds odd, but it's amazing. In the showcase they talked about and showed video of their work.  They've been using abandoned factories in upstate New York as filmed backdrops.  They also do dances inside a large truck.  And they had one set that was filmed by a drone.  

Then I had back to back political fundraisers - we have a mayoral race in Anchorage in April - to attend.  And finally I tried to watch the Humanity Forum's annual awards to see Rachel Epstein get her award.  She ran the UAA bookstore speaker program for years and years - a real treat for many of us.  

3.  Turkish and Spanish

I've been doing 20-30 minutes a day of Spanish on Duolingo for over a year now.  It helps my vocabulary and grammar, and my listening, but not my speaking.  But I figure it keeps my brain active.  A couple of months ago I decided to add Turkish.  A month or two in Istanbul is something I've been wanting to do.  I skipped Istanbul in 1965 when I was hitching from Germany to Greece and back - promising to get there one day.  So we've watched a few Turkish movies on Netflix, and the one at the Anchorage International Film Festival.  Turkish definitely offers insights in grammar that I'd never considered.  Lots of things - like plurals and possessives - are done with suffixes.  Well, we add an 's' to make plurals, or 'ies' so I'm sure we're as bizarre to speakers of other languages.  Also, adjusting my brain and fingers to a Turkish keyboard is tricky too.  

4.   Prodding Dan

I sent my junior Senator another email.  I figure his original Koch backers have their own agenda for him in the US Senate so he's more loyal to that than to protecting Democracy.  But I figure I can keep reminding him I'm here and I want him to prove he's really a Marine.  And maybe the staffers who read the emails are more susceptible to reason.  

5.  Keeping My Photoshop Skills Alive

6.  And There's The Daily Alaska COVID Count Update

The Supreme Court Can't Declare COVID-19 Unconstitutional, The Senate Can't Vote It Away, And Trump Doesn't Have Sway Over Nature

Trump has several key tactics.  He is good at figuring out how to flatter or goad people.  For whatever reasons he's good at mesmerizing his followers.  He 'negotiates' for everything else.  Negotiate includes bribes and threats if people don't want to play his game.  So he's got the Senate Republicans locked into supporting him.  And he's appointed two of the Supreme Court Justices and lots and lots of other far right judges.

Policies that depend on how the Senate votes, Trump can impact.  Actions requiring court approval, he's working on.  Even if he loses at lower court levels, there's a good chance the Supreme Court will save him.

But viruses (actual virus like COVID-19) follow the laws of nature.  Scientists don't even control that.  They can study and find ways to use the laws of nature to fight the virus, but they can't turn off the virus because the president tells them to.

About three years ago today I asked if people would stay on the bus if the driver were acting like Trump  -  because that is the real test of faith and trust.  Most people don't understand the details of tax laws or trade agreements or health systems to be able to sort out what is and isn't true.  (Well if you have a pre-existing condition or you lose your job, or have an uncovered medical bill, you find out what doesn't work.)

In that post I gave a couple more examples beyond bus driver:

• If your doctor acted like Trump
• If your high school teacher acted like Trump
• If your pilot acted like Trump
• If your boss (of the job you really need) acted like Trump
• If your priest acted like Trump

We all are more susceptible because of the Physician in Chief's ego-centric interpretation of scientific evidence.  Here is a list of responses from Kurt Eichenwald's Trump supporting acquaintances about the virus:

• It's a hoax.
• All places reporting sickness are blue states, and theyre lying. (Theyre not all blue states.)
• Democrats are infecting themselves.
• This is a chinese problem, & we're not Chinese.
• Everyone saying this is serious are anti-Trump and lying..
• A vaccine is almost ready, so there is no reason to worry about it.
• It's been isolated. (In China, they believe)
• WHO is a bunch of foreigners who hate trump for standing up for America. So they are lying to hurt him....
• It's not a serious disease. In fact, people can go to work with it! It's less serious than a cold.

This is from the cult part of his following.

You can believe your doctor, but if he's a quack, you'll pay for those beliefs.  These people are infected by something far worse than COVID-19.  And COVID-19 might be their kool-aid.

Unfortunately, my US Senators voted against me getting rid of this doctor and we all have to wait until November to fire him and January next year for him to leave.  (I did contact them to let them know their refusal to look at more evidence for impeachment has led to this now, where far more people are going to be severely affected by the virus - older folks, other vulnerable folks, and people who have other illnesses but will find doctors and hospitals unable to give them adequate attention.  

Corona Virus Is a Scientific Problem,  Not Susceptible To Political Spin So Trump's In Trouble.  But so are the rest of us.


I'd note that the Washington Post says that Trump's grandfather was an early victim of the Spanish flue in 1918.  But Wikipedia is not as conclusive:

The family story of his death is that "on May 29, 1918, while walking with his son Fred, Trump suddenly felt extremely sick and was rushed to bed. The next day, he was dead. What was first diagnosed as pneumonia turned out to be one of the early cases of the Spanish flu, which caused millions of deaths around the world.[3]:116" However, his death certificate shows this to be untrue as he was being attended by the doctor for a week prior to his death. His status as an early case of the flu requires more research to confirm.[24] He was 49 years old.

US Senate: Guilty of Cowardice and Derelict of Duty

Article I

They wouldn't even let the camera show the faces of the Senators as they voted.

Article II

Romney voted for impeachment in Article I, but not in Article II.  So, for article I the vote was bi-partisan for impeachment and partisan for acquittal.

Lisa Murkowski Wants It Both Ways - But I Suspect She's Alienated Everyone

I believe that Sen. Murkowski has thought hard on the issue of how to vote on the president's impeachment.  In the end, she has fallen into the trap laid for all people who try to see both sides (actually one needs to see all sides, but she talks in her speech more about two sides).  She has tried to cut the baby in half.  She's chastised the Senate (and the House) for having a rotten foundation, so the fair process she worked for failed.  BUT, nevertheless, she's voting against impeachment.

So she's probably alienated both sides.  I don't know what sort of bargains she's made with fellow Republicans, but I suspect her showing any sympathy at all for the House arguments is going to to be seen as challenging the president.  This will alienate members of her own party in Alaska and  she'll have a serious challenge in the 2022 primary.  Although acting 'moderate' she's decided to  vote to acquit Trump, and thus she'll have no support from the Democrats as she did last time when she ran as a write-in candidate.  No matter how much you wring your hands before doing it, voting to acquit won't cut it for those who are appalled at the president's behavior and the Senate majority's part of the 'jury' collusion with the defendant on trial issues, their  obfuscation of the issues, and refusal to hear more evidence.

The Republican Party simply has no more room for 'moderate' Republicans.  And the Democrats are tired of being teased by all the professions of 'making up my mind.'

Here's the video of her speech.  Below is the transcript with my comments in red.  I'd note the transcript comes from Sen. Murkowski's website and while it deviates slightly from the video, I'm guessing it's what she read from.




Transcript:

“I rise to address the trial of Donald John Trump. The founders gave this body the sole power to try all impeachments, and exercising that power is a weighty responsibility.
“This was only the third time in the history of our country that the Senate convened to handle a presidential impeachment, and only the second in the past 150 years.  I was part of a small group that worked to secure a fair, honest, and transparent structure for the trial, based on how this chamber handled the trial of President Clinton.  Twenty-four hours of arguments for each side, sixteen hours of questions from members, with the full House record admitted as evidence, should have been more than enough to answer the questions: do we need to hear more?  Should there be additional process?
“The structure we built should have been sufficient, but the foundation upon which it rested was rotten.
“The House rushed through what should be one of the most serious, consequential undertakings of the legislative branch simply to meet an artificial, self-imposed deadline.  Prior presidential impeachments resulted from years of investigations, where subpoenas were issued and litigated.

[The White House lawyers made two conflicting arguments:  1) that the House rushed this through, and 2) that there was no need for more information because the House had gathered an exhaustive collection of witnesses and documents.  Murkowski is leaning on their 'rushed it through' argument.  Of course, the years of litigation she mentions would mean that impeachment would drag on for years, which would have been against one of the other WH arguments - that impeachment focus prevents any legislation from getting passed.  Though they failed to mention the hundreds of passed House bills being blocked by the Senate Majority Leader.]

Where there were massive amounts of documents produced and witnesses deposed.  Where resistance from the executive was overcome through court proceedings and accommodations.
“The House failed in its responsibilities.  And the Senate should be ashamed by the rank partisanship that has been on display.  We cannot be the greatest deliberative body when we kick things off by issuing letters to the media instead of coming together to set the parameters of the trial and negotiate in good faith how we should proceed.  For all the talk of impartiality, it is clear that few in this chamber approached this with a genuinely open mind.  Some have been calling for this President to be impeached for years.  Others saw little need to even consider the arguments before stating their intentions to acquit.

She's a little cagey here.  When she accuses the House, she's clearly accusing the Democrats.  But when she accuses the Senate of 'rank partisanship' it's not clear if that's directed at the Republicans alone (who openly worked with the WH on how to proceed, to exclude witnesses, and try to get this done before the State of the Union speech.  Or if she is including the Democrats too.  Clearly she's implicating them when she talks about some calling for impeachment for years.  But, really, it doesn't matter when people called for impeachment.  It matters whether the charges are grave and the facts are certain.  

“Over the course of the past few weeks, we have all seen videos from twenty years ago, where members who were present during the Clinton trial took the exact opposite stance than they take today.  That level of hypocrisy is astounding even for D.C.

A good point.  

“The President’s behavior was shameful and wrong.  His personal interests do not take precedence over those of this great nation.  The president has the responsibility to uphold the integrity and honor of the office.  Not just for himself but for all future presidents.  Degrading the office, by actions or even name calling, weakens it for future presidents, and weakens our country.

More good points.  

“All of this rotted the foundation of the process, and this was why I reached the conclusion that there would be no fair trial.  While the trial was held in the Senate, it was litigated in the court of public opinion.

It's not based on the rules of a court of law.  The 'jury' worked with the defendant on the trial rules.  The foreman of the Senate/jury already declared the defendant would be acquitted from the beginning.  Public opinion IS important to impeachment.  Nixon resigned when public opinion changed and Republican senators told him they would vote for impeachment.  

“For half the country, there had already been far too much process.  They consider the entire impeachment inquiry to be baseless, and thought the Senate should have dismissed the case as soon as it reached us.  For the other half, no matter how many witnesses were summoned or deposed, no matter how many documents were produced, the only way the trial would have been considered “fair” was if it resulted in the President’s removal from office.

I think she's simplifying public opinion here.  She might have added that for at least 40% of the country, Trump could commit any crime and they would not have a problem.  But well more than half wanted to see witnesses called. I'm regularly astounded that Republicans keep chastising Democrats about fairness when the president violates all norms of fairness on a daily basis.  

“During the month that the House declined to transmit the articles to the Senate, the demon of faction extended his scepter, the outcome became clear, and a careless media cheerfully tried to put out the fires with gasoline.  

Let's give Murkowski's staff credit. "The demon of faction extended his scepter" comes from Federalist Paper # 65 written by Publius (Hamilton) where he writes about impeachment and who should carry it out.  The demon might come because of procrastination and prolonged inaction he argues.  But the thirty days the But the House held back the  articles of impeachment because the Senate Majority leader wouldn't disclose anything about how the trial would be conducted, is nothing compared to the years of litigation Murkowski was calling for earlier.  Here's part of that section from Hamilton:

". . . the injury to the innocent, from the procrastinated determination of the charges which might be brought against them; the advantage to the guilty, from the opportunities which delay would afford to intrigue and corruption; and in some cases the detriment to the State, from the prolonged inaction of men whose firm and faithful execution of their duty might have exposed them to the persecution of an intemperate or designing majority in the House of Representatives. Though this latter supposition may seem harsh, and might not be likely often to be verified, yet it ought not to be forgotten that the demon of faction will, at certain seasons, extend his sceptre over all numerous bodies of men." 

We debated witnesses instead of the case before the Senate. Rather than the President’s conduct, the focus turned to how a lack of additional witnesses could be used to undermine any final conclusion.

It's true, the White House counsel focused on witnesses and all other manner of process and theoretical legal issues.  The House Managers were much more focused on the details of Trump's violations  

“What started with political initiatives that degraded the Office of the President and left the Congress wallowing in partisan mud, threatened to drag the last remaining branch down along with us.  I have taken tough votes before to uphold the integrity of our courts.  

I'm assuming this refers to her not wanting to force the Chief Justice to become involved if the vote for witnesses was 50-50 and he would be called on the break the tie.  

And when it became clear that a tie vote in the Senate would simply be used to burn down our third branch of government for partisan political purposes, I said—enough.
“The response to the President’s behavior is not to disenfranchise nearly 63 million Americans and remove him from the ballot.

This is one of the specious arguments repeated over and over by the the White House defense team.  

1.  Impeachment is the remedy in the constitution for making the president accountable.  The idea that impeachment is illegitimate now because it "removes him from the ballot" is just plain wrong.  That is what an impeachment does.  Period.  The fact that this is the president's first term and he can run again is irrelevant.  There were no term limits in the Constitution, so when they wrote this they knew that impeachment would  remove someone who might run again.   Actually it appears that the Senate is given two options - they can vote to remove him from office, plus they can ban him from running for any future office.  But they don't have to do the latter.  So, if they only removed him from office, it's possible the Republicans could nominate him again.  So this wouldn't remove him from the ballot .
2.  "disenfranchise 63 million Americans" -  This argument neglects the fact that the 65,844,954 Americans who voted for Hillary Clinton were disenfranchised by the arcane rules of the electoral college.  Furthermore,  the 2018 election wiped out the large Republican majority in the House and gave the Democrats a large majority.  This more recent election gives us a better look at the will of the American people than 2016.  They empowered the House to proceed with impeachment.]

 The House could have pursued censure, not immediately jumped to the remedy of last resort.  I cannot vote to convict.  The Constitution provides for impeachment, but does not demand it in all instances.  An incremental first step, to remind the President that, as Montesquieu said, “Political virtue is a renunciation of oneself” and this requires “a continuous preference of the public interest over one’s own.” Removal from office, and being barred from ever holding another office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States is the political death penalty.  [Again, being barred from running for office again is not automatic.  Here's another opinion on that. Furthermore while 'political death penalty' might seem a horrible fate for a Senator, it's minor compared to actual death penalty.  Or even prison.  This is more like removing someone from a job for misdeeds.] The President’s name is on ballots that have already been cast. The voters will pronounce a verdict in nine months, and we must trust their judgment. [emphasis added]
“This process has been the apotheosis of the problem of Congressional abdication.  

"Apotheosis

Description  Apotheosis is the glorification of a subject to divine level and most commonly, the treatment of a human like a god. The term has meanings in theology, where it refers to a belief, and in art, where it refers to a genre. In theology, apotheosis refers to the idea that an individual has been raised to godlike stature. Wikipedia "

Through the refusal to exercise war powers, or relinquishing the power of the purse, selective oversight, and an unwillingness to check emergency declarations designed to skirt Congress – we have failed time and time again.  We cannot continue to cede authority to the executive. [So, since we have failed over and over again to reign in presidential usurpation of Congressional power, and even though you cite the president's failures in your eight paragraph, now is not the time to re-exert our power.  "We cannot continue to cede authority to the executive."  How does that lead to a vote to acquit?]
“The question that must be answered, given the intense polarization in our country, is where do we go from here?  Sadly, I have no definitive answers.  But I do have hope – because I must have hope.  As I tried to build consensus over the past few weeks I had many private conversations with my colleagues.  Many share my sadness for the state of our institutions.  It is my hope that we have found the bottom.  That both sides can look inward and reflect on the apparent willingness each has to destroy not just each other, but all of the institutions of our government. And for what?  Because it may help win an election?
“At some point – for our country – winning has to be about more than just winning – or we will all lose.”

Twitter Vented On Lisa Murkowski Today

After deciding not to vote for witnesses and additional documentation, Lisa Murkowski tweeted
yesterday:

Everyone should be treated equally under the law. I’ve been working hard with @SenatorCardin to make the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) part of the Constitution.
➡ https://t.co/vMcv0BYtz2 pic.twitter.com/G8cxIn7jem

— Sen. Lisa Murkowski (@lisamurkowski) February 1, 2020

The Twitter responses were not friendly.  Here are a few of the one thousand plus responses:

• Shame on you forever.
• So glad to hear this. Looking forward to all the witnesses who don’t have to skip work to testify at trials.
• You don't believe tRUMP should be held accountable. He hasn't been treated equally under the law. You say he is above the law & can commit any crime & any treasonous thing he wants to. You support this dictator & GOP cheating for the 2020 election with help from other countries.
• and NO ONE should be above the law. you didn't allow witnesses and disparaged your oath to do fair & impartial justice. this stain on your legacy is everlasting
• Say What? Constitution, what is that. Law, what law? We are now a lawless Country thanks to the GOP. Shame, shame.
• You're now irrelevant! Go away.
• You've lost every ounce of credibility you ever had by voting no to witnesses. #Cowards
• You forgot to add that this excludes @potus. #impotus gets special treatment and is truly above the law even when our Senators were charged with protecting our country. Your words are meaningless now, Senator.
• Oh honey, from this point forward you own trump and his behavior and corruption. That’s your legacy.
• Oh, WOW!! How can you write that first sentence with a straight damned face.
• #MoscowMitch comes out against it. Then you’ll be “concerned” and “troubled” by his statements, then either vote how he tells you, or pretend to be independent by voting against him when the vote doesn’t matter.
• You betrayed our country
• The Constitution? Really? You always had my support until yesterday. #GOPComplicitTraitors #GOPCorruptionOverCountry
• 75% of us wanted witnesses and documents. What happened to representing the people? You're no better than trump.

First, as negative tweets, these are pretty mild. They are all fact based (Murkowski's vote against witnesses and more documents) and they tend to reflect the opinion/feelings of the writer based on that action. She's not called names or disparaged because of physical characteristics.

Second, I'm guessing most of the comments were not from Alaskans. I'm guessing most of these people don't really know much about Murkowski. Basically, most know that she was considering voting for witnesses, and then changed her mind.

Third, my response to this was that at least people should acknowledge if she gets this changed (is this what she got in exchange for voting no on witnesses?) it would be a good thing, but then raise there anger at her witness vote. (If this was her bargain, she has more faith in her party keeping its promise than I have.)

Fourth,I learned long ago that after a powerful emotional event, it's best to just lie low a bit while people vent their anger. People aren't ready for rational discussion when they are really mad. Just showing her face on Twitter was likely to unleash a flood of anger.

Fifth, people are shouting about how excluding witnesses proves it's a sham trial. But it was obviously a sham trial from the beginning when the head of the jury said he was consulting with the defendant on how to plan the case.

Sixth, allowing witnesses and documents definitely would have prolonged the trial. There's a possibility it would have revealed more blockbuster revelations than we already know about. But enough to win over 16 more Republicans to convict? I doubt it. Even if Senators don't have some hidden shame, they know that Trump can simply make crap up about them and it will blemish them for a long time. And that he would.

Seventh, but I do hope that liberals are really careful about what they see and hear. There are plenty of folks out there focusing on the competition aspects of the Democratic race, rather than on the substance. It's much easier to understand and conflict gets clicks. I'll just say, that if it's about one Democrat being nasty about another one, take it with a grain of salt. Assume it's a troll trying to divide progressives until you get evidence it's not.

Eighth, the same people who said Trump couldn't win four years ago, are giving their opinions about electability now. It's opinion based on selective or just limited data. What polls say now is pretty meaningless. Electability is less about policy and more about charisma. Reagan - a charismatic, well spoken conservative - was followed by Clinton, a charismatic, well spoken moderate. If you have both - ability to speak to the issues and to the voters - you can win. Besides, winning is going to be about getting voters to the polls, countering false reports, making sure voting machines are fixed or hacked. And these responses to Lisa Murkowski's Tweet show that people are fighting mad. If they all can be recruited to each get ten people who have never voted to vote, Trump doesn't have a chance.

Finally, for those of you who have never seen Twitter, you can go and look at it without paying and without becoming a member. Just go to Twitter.com and poke around a bit. I'm going to do several posts on Twitter in the next weeks. At the very least you should know what it looks and feels like. In the search box you can put in topics or names you'd like to see.

Senate Republicans Choose Trump Over God

Let's be clear.  I tend to see God, at best, as a metaphor.  One of many ways for people to keep faith that things will be better.  I think there are better metaphors that do the same thing.  But when evangelists for different religions come to my door, I tend to ask them why they think they 'know' the truth and everyone else is wrong.  I ask them "Do you think if you'd been born in, say, Pakistan, don't you think you'd be just as fervent about Mohammad as you are now about Jesus?"

So, when yesterday's Impeachment Trial began with an invocation, I scratched my head - why, in a country founded by people fleeing religious persecution and with a constitutional mandate for freedom of religion, do we have a religious leader open a session of the Senate?

So I was a little surprised by Chaplain Barry Black's invocation.



“Eternal lord god, you have summarized ethical behavior in a single sentence: Do for others what you would like them to do for you,” Black continued. “Remind our senators that they alone are accountable to you for their conduct. Lord help them to remember that they can’t ignore you and get away with it, for we always reap what we sow. Have your way, mighty God. You are the potter our senators … are the clay. Mold and make us after your will. Stand up, omnipotent God. Stretch yourself and let this nation and world know that you alone are sovereign. I pray in the name of Jesus, Amen.”  (transcript from Newsone.)

I tweeted at the time:

"While I don't know why God should be included in government meetings, the invocation  appropriately asked the Senators [to] do the right thing.  Unfortunately, the Republican President seems to hold more sway than the Christian god.  #ImpeachmentTrial"

And now that witnesses have been excluded from the trial, it seems I was right.  The Chaplains words had less sway than whatever it is that Trump's minions are telling Republican Senators.


I'd note that while I think that Chaplain Black's words are noteworthy, especially when read in front of Republican Senators who tend to claim the Christian god as the basis of their life values, I'm posting this because it's relatively simple and easy to post.  I'm wrestling with lots of other issues that I'm trying to tie into coherent posts:

• How to verify troll/bots on Twitter  - I found a site that lets you do this and I'm working on a post about it.
• What are Twitter's rules?  - The bot detector uses Twitter's rules in its algorithm, but the rules aren't easily found on one page, so I'm trying to make them a little simpler to figure out
• How to post about Twitter for people who never use Twitter
• Responding to Murkowski critics - Tweeters are attacking her on a Tweet where she says she's working to get the ERA Amendment into the Constitution.  Not because they oppose that, but because they oppose her vote against witnesses.  Why attack her when there are 50 more Republican Senators who are much worse?
• My granddaughter's love for strawberries, but without any trace of the stem

But in the meantime, let's take solace in the notion that "you reap what you sow."

Truth Is Defined By Those In Power

The truth is what the majority in power says it is.  This can be temporarily the case in the natural sciences - like when the Catholic Church rejected Galileo's assertion that the earth went around the sun, or more recently when cigarette companies and the members of Congress they paid, said there wasn't any proof that smoking was unhealthy.  Temporary until the laws of nature resulted in case after case of lung cancer in smokers.

In the social and moral realm, truth is more tightly bound by the beliefs of those in power.

Thus, if the House had had a Republican majority, there would not have been an impeachment.

And because the Senate actually has a Republican majority, there isn't likely to be a conviction.

Much of my day was spent enduring the impeachment hearings.  They're very different from the Nixon impeachment.  Structurally it was very different and Republican Senators were less bound by ideology and whatever else Trump holds over their heads than they are today.  And the Democrats had a majority in both houses.

So, Trump has refused to cooperate on anything that he doesn't see in his interest.  Suppose that in November 2020 the Democratic candidate wins, despite all the Republican efforts to suppress voters, spread misinformation, hack into voting machines, and whatever else they might do to win.  Imagine, at that point, that Trump claims the elections were stolen by the Democrats.  And he refuses to recognize the results, refuses to step down, refuses to give up the reins of office.

What happens then?  Does he call up his supporters to take up arms and surround the White House?  Who escorts him out of the White House?  Does he declare a state of emergency?

And what do the still sitting Republican Senators do then?

I don't think that's going to happen, but I want US citizens to be prepared for that possibility.  Because when Trump is acquitted, his  belief that he can get away with anything will become the Truth within the current power structure.

I've kept my balance today by spending a fair amount of time with my granddaughter.  But being with her reminds me how important it is to stand up and fight this president and where he's taking this country.

"MacMurfee ought not to elect legislators who can be bribed or who have done things they can get blackmailed for.”

Yesterday was a travel day for me, so I got my impeachment fix by reading All The King's Men. Robert Penn Warren's Pulitzer Prize winning novel follows the life of Willie Stark, as told by one of his aides, Jack Burden.  Stark started out as a poor farmer and becomes the Governor of Louisiana.

Part of yesterday's reading covered his impending impeachment and how Stark thwarted it.  Seems relevant as people look at their Republican US Senators and wonder how - especially those who have publicly opposed Trump before he was elected - don't break ranks.

Willie Stark has taken to making speeches all over rural Louisiana to shore up 'his people,' complaining how the city folks are screwing them over and how the impeachment is part of that plan.  He encourages them to come to the capital and protest.

During that protest, Jack Burden, the narrator and part of Stark's team, tells us what he's doing to thwart the impeachment.  If you want an idea of what's going on behind the scenes today, this is probably as good a primer as any.

The crowd is chanting Willie's name as Jack Burden looks out the window. Another Stark aide is telling the crowd to go to the Capitol at 8 pm for an announcement from Willie.

Jack muses about how he knows how this is all going to play out, and then tells us why.

I knew what he would tell them. I knew that he would stand up
before them and say that he was still Governor of the state.
I knew that, because early the previous evening, around seven-
thirty, he had called me in and given me a big brown manila envelope,
"Lowdan is down at the Haskell Hotel," he said. “I know
he's in his room now. Go down there and let him take a peep at
that but don’t let him get his hands on it and tell him to call his
dogs off. Not that it matters whether he does or not, for they’ve
changed their minds," (Lowdan was the kingpin of the MacMurfee
boys in the House.)
I had gone down to the Haskell and to Mr. Lowdan’s room with-
out sending my name. I knocked on the door, and when I heard
the voice, said, "Message.” He opened the door, a big jovial-looking
man with a fine manner, in a flowered dressing gown. He didn’t
recognize me at first, just seeing a big brown envelope and some
sort of face above it. But I withdrew the brown envelope just as his
hand reached for it, and stepped over the sill. Then he must have
looked at the face. "Why, howdy-do, Mr, Burden," he said, "they
say you’ve been right busy lately."
"Loafing," I said, "just plain loafing. And I was just loafing by
and thought I’d stop and show you something a fellow gave me.”
I took the long sheet out of the envelope, and held it up for him
to look at. "No, don’t touch, bum-y, burn-y," I said.
He didn’t touch but he looked, hard. I saw his Adam’s apple
jerk a couple of times; then he removed his cigar from his mouth
(a good cigar, two-bit at least, by the smell) and said, "Fake."
"The signatures are supposed to be genuine," I said, "but if you
aren’t sure you might ring up one of your boys whose name you
see on here and ask him man to man."
He pondered that thought a moment, and the Adam’s apple
worked again, harder now, but he was taking it like a soldier. Or
he still thought it was a fake. Then he said, "I’ll call your bluff
on that," and walked over to the telephone.
Waiting for his number, he looked up and said, "Have a seat,
won’t you?"
"No, thanks," I said, for I didn’t regard the event as sociaL

Then he had the number.
"‘Monty,” he said into the phone, *’I've got a statement here to
the effect that the undersigned hold that the impeachment proceedings are unjustified and will vote against them despite all pressure.
That’s what it says— 'all pressure.’ Your name’s on the list. How
about it?”
There was a long wait, then Mr. Lowdan said, ”For God’s sake,
quit mumbling and blubbering and speak up!”’
There was another wait, then Mr. Lowdan yelled, “You— you—”
But words failed him, and he slammed the telephone to the cradle,
and swung the big, recently jovial-looking face toward me. He was
making a gasping motion with his mouth, but no sound.
"‘Well,” I said, “you want to try another one?” 

So Willie's folks had gotten a bunch of MacMurfee's men to turn and vote in Willie's favor.  But how?

“It’s blackmail,” he said, very quietly, but huskily as though he
didn’t have the breath to spare. Then, seeming to get a little more
breath, “It’s blackmail. It’s coercion. Bribery, it’s bribery. I tell you,
you’ve blackmailed and bribed those men. and I—’
“I don’t know why anybody signed this statement,” I said, “but
if what you charge should happen to be true then the moral strikes
me as this: MacMurfee ought not to elect legislators who can be
bribed or who have done things they can get blackmailed for.”
“MacMurfee—” he began, then fell into a deep silence, his
flowered bulk brooding over the telephone stand. He’d have his
own troubles with Mr. MacMurfee, no doubt.  (emphasis added)

I'm guessing this applies to why so many Republicans are holding out with Trump.  They're getting promises of financial help with their next election if they stay loyal and threats of support for an opponent in the primary if they don't.  Some may be getting funding to help special projects or with outstanding debts.  Others are being reminded of girlfriends or boyfriends or other peccadilloes they'd rather not have public.  

This is the third post on this book as we watch the impeachment trials.  The first was looked at how Warren set the tone and background for the story.

The second one was an example of how Willie leaned on someone who crossed him.

For this one, I wised up and found a pdf version of the book online, saving me the effort of copying the passages by hand.  In my book, this all happens between pages 222 and 224.  In the online copy at the Internet Archive, which you can reach here, it happens between pages 157-159.

Sen Dan Sullivan Responds Quickly To My Email Concerning Impeachment [UPDATED With Murkowski's Impeachment Response And Views Flying Out Of Anchorage)

The options one has when picking a topic at Dan Sullivan's 'contact' site does include Impeachment.  Not could I find "other.'   So I marked something like "Crime and Law Enforcement."

If you want to contact Sen. Sullivan you can at this link.
Senator Lisa Murkowski can be contacted here.

For non-Alaskans, you can get to your Senators here.

His response does not address the specific issues I raised, but it suggests that he's getting at least a few letters.  It stays neutral except for a part that takes a jab at the fairness of the House process.  Here's the response:

"Dear Mr. A,
Thank you for contacting me regarding the impeachment of President Trump. I appreciate your thoughts on this issue and welcome the opportunity to respond.
Article II, Section 4, of the U.S. Constitution reads, “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United Sates, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” The House and Senate have essential, but different roles in carrying out the constitutional responsibilities required for the impeachment inquiry and trial. An impeachment proceeding must originate in the House of Representatives.
Following allegations that President Trump potentially engaged Ukraine to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden, the House of Representatives initiated an impeachment inquiry on September 24, 2019.
Articles of impeachment are a set of charges, and act similar to an indictment in court. Following the House’s decision to impeach, the Senate conducts a trial. When the trial concludes, the Senate meets as a whole to deliberate. A conviction requires the support of two-thirds of the Senators present.
On December 18, 2019, the House approved two articles of impeachment: Article I by a vote of 230 to 197, and Article II by a vote of 229 to 198. This matter has now moved to the Senate, where a trial is being conducted. On January 22, 2020, the Senate agreed to rules for the procedures of the impeachment trial. These rules, very similar to those used during the impeachment of former President Clinton, allow the House managers and the President’s legal team 24 hours each to present their arguments. Importantly, these rules allow the Senate to call additional witnesses and request documents if determined necessary after the first phase of the trial where both sides are able to fully present their side of the case and answer questions from Senators. The fair and reasonable rules agreed to for the trial in the Senate stand in sharp contrast to the process in the House.
Now that articles of impeachment have come before the Senate for consideration, I have sworn an oath as a juror to do “impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws,” and I will reserve final judgement on this matter until all facts are known. I encourage you to read the impeachment proceedings from both the House managers and the President’s legal team, and determine for yourself the fairness of the proceedings and whether the actions of the President constitute an impeachable offense. The impeachment briefings can be found on my website at the following link:
https://www.sullivan.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/information-on-the-senates-impeachment-proceedings
Thank you again for contacting me on this issue. If you have any more questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me or my staff. My office can be reached at 202-224-3004, or online at www.sullivan.senate.gov."

Sincerely,

Dan Sullivan
United States Senator 

[UPDATE January 27, 2020m 9:57pm Seattle time:  This email from Senator Murkowski, in response to an email I sent a week ago, came shortly after I posted Sen. Sullivan's response.  But I

was on an airplane and I only just saw it after spending time with my granddaughter here and daughter here on Bainbridge.

"Dear Steven:

          Thank you for contacting me to share your views.  I appreciate hearing from you and having the opportunity to explain my position on the Articles of Impeachment against the President and the trial being held in the Senate.
          As you know, the Articles of Impeachment have been sent over from the House and are now before us.  Our responsibilities as a Senate are outlined in the U.S. Constitution—the Senate will act as the court of impeachment.  Our duty is to oversee a fair trial.
          While I encouraged the Majority Leader and Minority Leader to come ­to an agreement on setting the parameters for the Senate trial, after several weeks that did not happen.  I supported the organizing resolution offered by Majority Leader McConnell, which follows the framework set in the 1999 trial of President Clinton.  This effectively provides President Trump the same treatment every senator thought was fair for President Clinton during his impeachment trial.  This process allows the House and the President to present their case, following which Senators are allowed time to submit questions to the case managers.  After those questions, the Senate will then be allowed to vote on whether it is in order to ask for witness testimony or additional documents.
          The removal of a duly elected President by impeachment is a significant and serious matter and should not be approached lightly.  I have taken an oath to deliver impartial justice according to the Constitution and the law.  I will not rush to judgment, making all decisions based on the facts of the case presented.
          Again, thank you for contacting me.
United States Senator
Lisa Murkowski
http://murkowski.senate.gov*"

"when this conscience business starts, ain't no telling where it'll stop": Willie Stark Shakes Down Judge Irwin

When I left off in the first post about William Penn Warren's All The King's Men, the Boss, Willie Stark, used Jack, for whom Judge Irwin had been like a second father, to get into the judge's house.
The newspaper just announced that Irwin had endorsed the opponent of one of Stark's candidates.  Jack had gotten the judge to open the front door, late at night.

This is how I imagine Trump and his henchmen leaning on Republican Senators.  Though they probably are not as skilled as Willie Stark.  And the Senators appear far much less able to stand up to Trump the way the Judge does.   But the same sort of dynamics.



Once the Judge sees it's Jack at his door, the judge asks Jack how he is and what he can do for him.  Jack asks if the judge  could talk to ---

'"He turned to shut the door, and if his ticker hadn't been in good shape for all his near three score and ten he'd have dropped dead.  For the Boss was standing there in the door.  He hadn't made a sound."

The Boss forces his way in and the judge asks if he has anything to say, and the Boss says:

"'Not at the moment.'
'Well,' the Judge said, 'in that case --'
'Oh, something might develop,' the Boss broke in.  'You never can tell.  If we get the weight off our arches.'
'In that case,' the Judge returned, and it was an old needle and an old record and it was scraping ike a file on cold tin and nothing human, "I may say that I was about to retire.'
'Oh, it's early yet,' the Boss said, and took his time giving Judge Irwin the once-over from head to toe.  The Judge was wearing an old-fashioned velvet smoking jacket and tuxedo pants and a boiled shirt, but he had taken off his collar and tie, and the gold collar button was shining just under the big old red Adam's apple.  'Yea,' the boss went on after he'd finished his once-over, 'and you'll sleep better if you wait before going to bed and give that fine dinner you had a chance to digest.' (p 64)

'This verbal duel continues for couple of pages with the screws tightening slowly.  The Boss sits down as the narrator describes the room in detail.  The Boss tells Jack to get him a drink and pour one for himself.

"Judge Irwin didn't answer him.  He turned to me, and said, 'I didn't realize, Jack, that your duties included those of a body servant, but, of course, if I am mistaken -'
I could have slapped his face.  I could have slapped that God-damned handsome, eagle-beaked, strong-boned, rubiginous-hided old face, in which the eyes weren't old but were hard and bright without any depth to them and were an insult to look into.  And the Boss laughed, and I could have slapped his God-damned face.  I could have walked right out and left the two of them there, alone in that cheese-smelling room together  till hell froze over, and just kept walking.  But I didn't, and perhaps it was just as well, for maybe you cannot ever really walk out from the things you want most to walk away from."  (p. 66)

Do you think Michael Cohen began to feel like Jack?

The Boss gets up and pours Jack a drink and hands it to him.

'. . . the Boss look[s] up at Judge Irwin and say[s], 'Sometimes Jack pours me a drink, and sometimes I put him a drink and  - -' he stepped toward the desk again - - 'sometimes I pour myself a drink.'
He poured the drink, added water, and looked again at the Judge, leering with a kind of comic cunning.  "Whether I'm asked or not,' he said.  And added, 'There's lots of thing you never get, Judge, if you wait till you are asked.  And I am an impatient man.  I am a very impatient man, Judge.   That is why I am not a gentleman, Judge.' (p. 66)

The Boss offers the Judge a drink of his own liquor, but the judge refuses.

'The Boss looked up at him from the chair and said, 'Judge, you happen to have an evening paper round here?'
The paper was lying over on another chair by the fireplace, with the judge's collar and tie on top of it, and his white jacket hung on the back of the chair  I saw the Judge's eyes snap over there to it, and then back at the Boss.
'Yes,' the Judge said, 'as a matter of fact, I have'
'I haven't had a chance to see one, rushing round the country today.  Mind if I take a look?'
"Not in the slightest,' Judge Irwin said, and the sound was the file scraping on that cold tin again, ' but perhaps I can relieve your curiosity on one point.  The paper publishes my endorsement of Callahan for the Senate nomination.  If that is of interest to you.'
'Just wanted to hear you say it, Judge.  Somebody told me, but you know how rumor hath a thousand tongues, and how the newspaper boys tend to exaggeration, and the truth ain't in 'em.'
'There was no exaggeration in this case,' the Judge said.
'Just wanted to hear you say it.  With your own silver tongue.'
'Well, you've heard it,' the judge said, standing straight in the middle of the floor, 'and in that case, at your leisure --' the Judge's face was the color of calf's liver again, even if the words did come out cold and spaced - -'if you have finished your drink.'
'Why thanks, Judge,' the boss said, sweet as chess pie, 'I reckon I will take another spot.'  (pp. 67-68)

The Boss gets another drink, sits down, and asks the Judge if he's checked his decision with the Lord.

"'I have settled the matter in my own mind,' the Judge said.
'Well, if I recollect right --' the Boss ruminatively turned the glass in his hands --'back in town, when we had our little talk, you sort of felt my boy Masters was all right."
'I made no commitment,' the Judge said sharply, 'I didn't make any commitment except to my conscience.'
'You been messing in politics for a long time, Judge,' the Boss said, easy, 'and --' he took a drag from the glass --'so has your conscience.'
'I beg your pardon,' the Judge snapped.
'Nuts,' the boss said, and grinned, ' but what got you off Master?!'
'Certain features of his career came to my attention.'
'Somebody dug up some dirt for you, huh?'
'If you choose to call it that,' the Judge said.
'Dirt's a funny thing,' the Boss said.  'Come to think of it, there ain't a thing but dirt on this green God's globe except what's under water, and that's dirt too.  It's dirt makes the grass grow.  A diamond ain't a thing in the world but a piece of dirt that got awful hot.  And God-a-Might picked up a handful of dirt and blew on it and made you and me and George Washington and mankind blessed in faculty and apprehension.  It all depends on what you do with the dirt.  That right?'
'It doesn't alter the fact,' the Judge said from way up there where his head was, above the rays of the desk lamp, 'that Masters doesn't strike me as a responsible man.'
'He better be responsible,' the Boss said, 'or I'll break his God-damned neck!'
'That's the trouble.  Masters would be responsible to you.'
'It's a fact,' the Boss admitted ruefully, lifting his face under the light, and shaking his head in fatalist sadness. 'Masters'd be responsible to me.  I can't help it.  But Callahan -- now take Callahan -- it sort of seems to me he's gonna be responsible to you and Alta Power and God knows who else before he's through.  And what's the difference? Huh?'
'Well --'
'Well, hell!'  The Boss popped straight up in the chair with that inner explosions he had when, all of a sudden, he would snatch a fly out of the air or whip his head at you and his eyes would snap open.  He popped up and his heels dug into the red carpet.  Some of the liquor sloshed out of his glass onto his Palm Beach pants.  'Well, I'll tell you the difference, Judge!  I can deliver Masters and you can't deliver Callahan.  And that's a big difference.'
'I'll have to take my chance,' the Judge said from way up there.
'Chance?' And the Boss laughed.  'Judge,' he said, and quit laughing, ' you haven't got but one chance.  You been guessing right in this state going on forty years.  You been sitting back here in this room and n*** boys been single-footing in here bringing you toddies and you been guessing right.  You been sitting  back here and grinning to yourself while the rest of 'em were out sweating on the stump and snapping their suspenders, and when you wanted anything you just reached out and took it.  Oh, if you had a little time off from duck hunting and corporation law you might do a hitch as Attorney General.  So you did.  Or play at being a judge.  You been a judge a long time.  How would it feel not to be a judge anymore?'
'No man,' Judge Irwin said, and stood up there straight in the middle of the floor, 'has ever been able to intimate me.'
'Well, I never tried,' the Boss said, 'yet.  And I'm not trying now.  I'm going to give you a chance.  You said somebody gave you some dirt on Masters?  Well, suppose I gave you some dirt on Callahan? --Oh, don't interrupt!  Keep your shirt on!'  --and he held up his hand.  'I haven't been doing any digging, but I might, and if I went out in the barn lot and stuck my shovel in and  brought you some of the sweetest-smelling and put it under the nose of your conscience, then do you know what your conscience would tell you to do?  It would tell you to withdraw your endorsement of Callahan.  And the newspaper boys would be over here thicker'n bluebottle flies on a dead dog, and you could tell 'em all about you and your conscience.  You wouldn't even have to back Masters.  You and your conscience could just go off arm in arm and have a fine time telling each other how much you think of each other."  (pp. 67-70)

I know these are getting to be longer and longer quotes.  But this all fits in together as the screws tighten.  It's a slow steady build up.  The Judge doesn't budge.  Jack listens to the ticks and tocks of the grandfather clock.

'The Boss quit studying Judge Irwin's face, which didn't show anything.  He let himself sink back in the chair, shrugged his shoulders, and lifted the glass up for a drink.  Then he said, 'Suit yourself, Judge.  But you know there's another way to play it.  Maybe somebody might give Callahan a little shovelful on somebody else and Callahan might grow a conscience all of a sudden and repudiate his endorser.  You know, when this conscience business starts, ain't no telling where it'll stop, and when you start the digging --'
'I'll thank you  sir --' Judge Irwin took a step toward the big chair, and his face wasn't the color of calf's liver now --it was long past that and streaked white back from the base of the jutting nose --'I'll thank you sir, to get out of that chair and get out of this house!'
The Boss didn't lift his head off the leather.  He looked up at the Judge, sweet and trusting, and then cocked his eyes over to to me.  'Jack,' he said, 'you were sure right.  The Judge don't scare easy.'
'Get out,' the Judge said, not loud this time.
'These old bones don't move fast,' the Boss murmured sadly, 'but now I have tried to do my bounden duty, let me go.'  Then he drained his glass, set it on the floor beside the chair, and rose.  He stood in front of the Judge, looking up at him, squinting again, cocking his head to one side again, like a farmer getting ready to buy a horse.  .  .
Then, as though he had decided against buying the horse, the Boss shook his head and passed around the Judge, as though the Judge weren't a man at all, or even a horse, as though he were the corner of a house or a tree, and headed for the hall door, putting his feet down slow and easy on the red carpet.  No hurry. . .
The Boss laid his hand on the doorknob, opened the door and then, with his hand still on the knob, he looked back.  'Well  Judge,' he said, more in pain than with wrath I go.  And if your conscience decides it could gag at Callahan, just let me know.  In, of course---' and he grinned --'a reasonable time.' (pp 71-72)

The Boss may not have gotten all he wanted in this visit, but this was nothing less than a political home invasion.  And the Judge had to endure the Boss' taking over his house and his liquor and had to endure his threat.

And if a Senate were trying to impeach Willie Stark for this political arm twisting, how much hard evidence of any actual crime would there be?

[I had to look up rubiginous.  It means 'rust-colored.']