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.”

We Need Less Junk News And More Nutritious News That Helps Build Our Understanding Of The World

We've heard of Fake News.  That's disinformation and propaganda, and, for the most part, the so called mainstream media doesn't intentionally offer Fake News.

But the the mainstream media is guilty of feeding us a steady diet of what I'm calling JUNK NEWS - the news equivalent of Twinkies and Coke.  It titillates, not with sugar, but with violence, sex, gossip, and cute.  It feeds our hunger for news, but without us actually gaining any understanding.  We end up growing facter and facter, without gaining greater understanding or knowing what to do to improve the world.  We get irritable and depressed instead of taking on the system.  (And yes, that work is left to the relative few who have figured out how to consume news in a healthy and productive way.)

We get so much trivia about the presidential candidates, for instance, and who's up this week and interviews with people who may or may not be representative of what others are thinking.  Basically it's random facts (this lady, from this town, who works in this organization, is this age, and she says this) used to create the reporter's opinion as though it had meaningful factual basis.  NPR doesn't report the news, it serves news stories, news nuggets, that make it easier for its listeners to consume.  Like fast food.  (I'm not saying that reporters shouldn't make the news accessible, but that the news, not the story telling, should be the top priority.

Trump successfully manipulates the media with his Tweets to bring attention to himself and distract from what's really important.  Our collective outrage over his thinking the Chiefs are from Kansas is totally wasted energy.  A reporter might say that it's important to show you this isn't just a single incident, but that it's a pattern, and that that matters. But Trump has done this so often that no one can any longer claim that the collective weight of his nonsense matters.  All the time we spend watching, reading, surfing the news, should actually be spent learning about how things work. How banks, treaties, arms sales, military spending, and dead  soldiers and civilians all fit together.    Only when you know how it works, can you focus on how to dismantle or repair things.

So I'd like to call attention to an article that dives a little deeper than most into how the sanctions on Iran work (or don't work.)  Esfandyar Batmanghelidj at Bloomberg News looks at the details of US sanctions on Iran, specifically a section on humanitarian aid.  Here's a brief excerpt from the article:

"But hidden in the mechanics of SHTA’s [Swiss Humanitarian Trade Arrangement] initial 2.3 million-euro transaction is an unprecedented provision that could help address growing concerns that the Trump administration’s “maximum pressure” sanctions campaign will be impossible to lift even in the aftermath of new negotiations with Iran.
The relevant provision is hidden in the jargon of a statement issued last October describing Treasury’s framework for SHTA: 'Provided that foreign financial institutions commit to implement stringent, enhanced due-diligence steps, the framework will enable them to seek written confirmation from Treasury that the proposed financial channel will not be exposed to U.S. sanctions.'”

And there are plenty of others who do this sort of in depth and breadth understanding building reporting.  Chris Hedges is one who ties lots of loose ends together. Much of his writing is too scary for most people.  Citizens Climate Lobby does a good job of explaining Climate Change.  Dahr Jamail is another.  Hasan Minhaj is another who tells the news in the Daily Show fashion.  Here's a whole gallery of people who try to offer more serious news.  Though in many cases, it doesn't come in convenient, tempting fast news wrapping.  This may mean reading books and other radical activities.

 We need more of this kind of reporting and a lot less of the junk news.  Media offer the news that sells.  There are huge corporate pressures for profits in the food industry and in the media.  But just as health food advocates have changed what corporations serve, so can healthy news advocates can do the same with the media industry.  There will always be consumers of click bait, we just need to keep increasing the proportion of people who make most of their news consumption serious news.

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."

"Thanks for your interest, but this survey has reached the maximum number of participants. . . "

I got an email yesterday from ACS (Although they now call themselves just Alaska Communications, I still think of them as ACS) asking for me to give them feedback.  We have ACS because we got a 'bundle' many years ago that includes landline and email (not cable.)  We don't really need the landline, but since it comes with the cable at a guaranteed price, we keep it.

But I'm in a neighborhood that gets REALLY slow internet. When I ask, they say they don't have us wired.  But I'm a patient man and part of me laughs at the folks who worry because a website comes up two seconds slower than they think it should.  But I thought I'd tell them it would be nice to get us a faster connection.

So, today I clicked on the link to the survey and got this response:

"d Hi! Thanks for your interest, but this survey has reached the maximum number of participants. We truly value your feedback at Alaska Communications, so keep your eyes open for input opportunities. We look forward to hearing from you in the future!"

 That's when I decided to post this  Really?!  That have a maximum number of participants?  They're going to cut off people who might have different things to say?  Well maybe it only allowed you to check yes or now, or rate things on a one to five scale.  Maybe they didn't have an open comments section anyway.

But to ask for feedback and then block you just seem like good customer relations.  Had I been a week late maybe, but it wasn't even 24 hours later that I tried to respond.

Well, I got to this point and thought I should check with Alaska Communications to find out why they had a cap on the number of respondents.  The operator I talked to immediately said, that isn't supposed to happen.  That's a glitch.  Thanks for calling and letting us know.  I'll notify the department doing that right away.

Another reminder that our imaginations don't necessarily come up with the correct interpretation of the events we witness.  An especially good reminder for a blogger.

And I'd note the appeal of blogging about something  simple and controllable on this day of shame in the US Senate.

[UPDATED Jan 31, 2020 5:10pm:  Got another email and the link worked.  The questionnaire was short and had space fo me to make comments.]

How Close Are You To Corona Virus?

My daughter told me that J and I had been in the Seattle Airport the day the first US corona virus victim arrived from China.  (He's doing fine now.)

And today I learned that the  plane with US citizens being evacuated from Wuhan, the center of the outbreak, stopped in Anchorage on the way to their destination in California.

These two bits of information don't cause me to worry or run out and buy a face mask, but they do highlight that in today's world we aren't as far away from things as we sometimes think.  And if we consider that the flu pandemic of 1918 and 1919, it seems to have spread around the world in an era when airplanes were small and transoceanic passengers went by ship.

At the moment, we know little about this illness.  Here's what the CDC (US Center for Disease Control) says about risk assessment:

"Risk Assessment
Outbreaks of novel virus infections among people are always of public health concern. The risk from these outbreaks depends on characteristics of the virus, including whether and how well it spreads between people, the severity of resulting illness, and the medical or other measures available to control the impact of the virus (for example, vaccine or treatment medications).
This is a serious public health threat. The fact that this virus has caused severe illness and sustained person-to-person spread in China is concerning, but it’s unclear how the situation in the United States will unfold at this time.
The risk to individuals is dependent on exposure. At this time, some people will have an increased risk of infection, for example healthcare workers caring for 2019-nCoV patients and other close contacts. For the general American public, who are unlikely to be exposed to this virus, the immediate health risk from 2019-nCoV is considered low."  (emphasis added)

The CDC site gives a lot more information you might find interesting, such as:

"Coronaviruses are a large family of viruses that are common in many different species of animals, including camels, cattle, cats, and bats. Rarely, animal coronaviruses can infect people and then spread between people such as with MERS and SARS.

CDC and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) are continuing to conduct enhanced entry screening of passengers who have been in Wuhan within the past 14 days at 5 designated U.S. airports. Given travel out of Wuhan has been shut down, the number of passengers who meet this criteria are dwindling.

Going forward, CBP officials will monitor for travelers with symptoms compatible with 2019-nCoV infection and a travel connection with China and will refer them to CDC staff for evaluation at all 20 U.S. quarantine stations."

Of course, screening travelers requires travelers to be forthcoming about where they have been and whether they've had any symptoms.

Meanwhile, while you worry about coronavirus, remember to look both ways before crossing the street, put your phone away while you're driving, and follow all the common rules that will prevent you from getting hurt or sick or from dying from more common every day risks.

From the National Safety Council:

• Unintentional injuries are the #1 cause of death among people ages 1 to 44
• Motor vehicle crashes and drowning consistently rank as top causes of unintentional death in this age group
• Males 35-44 are nearly three times more likely to die in a motor vehicle crash than females
• 97% to 99% of injuries are caused by our own errors and mistakes

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*"

Continued Frosty Sunshine

It's still a mystery how birds, like this raven, can survive wearing the same set of 'clothes' at 5˚F below and 80˚F above.



This was yesterday morning walking back from breakfast with friends.  If you're dressed right for the weather, it isn't cold.


I didn't post this yesterday because I really wanted people to read the Willie Stark shakedown post, because I think it helps us understand how 'quid pro quo' aren't as explicit as the Trump defense would have us believe.  And it also shows how power-hungry people screw over the people who work for them as well as everyone else.  Jack most probably shows us a variation of Michael Cohen who ended up doing Trump's dirty work.  And it's a warning to Republican Senators that it doesn't matter how often you defend Trump.  If you don't show absolute obedience every single day, you'll get turned on.  Ask Rep. Gaetz.  You can read that here.