Saturday, February 8, 2020
The DNC Can't Slow Bernie Sanders' Momentum
Norman Solomon
https://www.truthdig.com/articles/the-dnc-cant-slow-bernie-sanders-momentum/
As a center of elite power, the Democratic National Committee is now floundering. Every reform it has implemented since 2016 was the result of progressive grassroots pressure. But there are limits to what DNC Chair Tom Perez is willing to accept without a knock-down, drag-out fight. And in recent weeks, he has begun to do heavy lifting for corporate Democrats — throwing roadblocks in the way of the Bernie 2020 campaign as it continues to gain momentum.
The fiasco in Iowa, despite its importance, is a sideshow compared to what is foreshadowed by recent moves from Perez. For one thing, he appointed avowedly anti-Bernie corporate operatives to key positions on powerful DNC committees. The flagrant conflicts of interest have included entrenching paid staffers for Michael Bloomberg’s presidential campaign on rules committees for the DNC and the upcoming Democratic National Convention.
Perez soon followed up by abruptly changing the official rules to allow Bloomberg to participate in the debate scheduled for three days before the Feb. 22 Nevada caucuses. The egregious decision to waive the requirement for large numbers of individual donors rolled out the blue carpet for Bloomberg to the debate stage.
“Now suddenly a guy comes in who does not campaign one bit in Iowa, New Hampshire, he’s not on the ballot I guess in Nevada or South Carolina, but he’s worth $55 billion,” Sanders said Thursday when asked about the rules change. “I guess if you’re worth $55 billion you can get the rules changed for a debate. So, to answer your question: I think that is an absolute outrage and really unfair.”
Inconvenient facts — such as the reality that Bloomberg fervently endorsed President George W. Bush for re-election in 2004 (in a speech to the Republican National Convention, no less) or that as mayor of New York he championed racist stop-and-frisk police policies — are less important to party chieftains than the humongous dollar signs that self-financing Bloomberg is bringing to the table.
The mayors of San Francisco, Washington, Anchorage and Albany, among others, have already succumbed to Bloomberg’s wealthy blandishments and endorsed him, as has former Black Panther and longtime disappointment Congressman Bobby Rush. To corporate elites, the moral of the sordid Bloomberg story is that most people can be bought, and Bloomberg might be the deus ex machina to lift them out of an impending tragedy of Sanders as nominee.
The glaring subtext of all this is the now-frantic effort to find some candidate who can prevent Sanders from becoming the party’s nominee at the national convention in July. Early corporate favorites like Beto O’Rourke, Cory Booker and Kamala Harris fizzled and flamed out. Joe Biden appears to be sinking. Amy Klobuchar staked her hopes on Iowa without success. That appears to leave Pete Buttigieg and Bloomberg as the strongest corporate contenders to prevent the corporate Democrats’ worst nightmare — the nomination of an authentic progressive populist.
A traditional claim by corporate Democrats — the assumption that grassroots progressive campaigns are doomed — is oddly matched by the assumptions of right-wing media and some on the left that the DNC can successfully rig just about anything it wants to. Fox News has been feasting on the Iowa meltdown, pleased to occasionally invite leftists on the air to denounce the DNC, immediately followed by routine denunciations of Democrats in general and Sanders in particular as diabolical socialists eager to destroy any and all American freedoms with a collectivist goal of tyranny.
Meanwhile, some progressives have such an inflated view of the DNC’s power that they propagate the idea that all is lost and Bernie is sure to be crushed. It’s the kind of defeatism that’s surely appreciated by right-wingers and corporate Democrats alike.
Perhaps needless to say, if Bernie Sanders had such a fatalistic view of electoral politics, he never would have run for president in the first place. People on the left who say the DNC’s elite power can’t be overcome with grassroots organizing are mirroring the traditional scorn from corporate Democrats — who insist that the left can never dislodge them from dominance of the party, let alone end corporate dominance of the nation.
Like millions of other progressives who support Bernie 2020, I realize that the forces arrayed against us are tremendously powerful. That’s the nature of the corporate beast. The only way to overcome it is to organize and fight back. That’s what the movements behind the Sanders campaign are doing right now.
In the words of a Latin American graffiti writer, “Let’s save pessimism for better times.”
Bloc of Muslim Nations Warns Trump Israel-Palestine Plan 'Destroys the Foundations of Peace'
The Organization of Islamic Cooperation emphasized that "peace and security in the Middle East region, as a strategic option, will only be achieved with the end of the Israeli occupation."
by
Jessica Corbett, staff writer
8 Comments
https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/02/03/bloc-muslim-nations-warns-trump-israel-palestine-plan-destroys-foundations-peace?
Joining global critics of a plan that President Donald Trump unveiled last week to address the decades-long Israel-Palestine conflict, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation on Monday rejected the "biased" proposal and urged members states not to cooperate with U.S. efforts to enforce it.
At a meeting in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, the OIC executive committee adopted a resolution which decried Trump's so-called "Deal of the Century," reaffirmed support for the Palestinian people and the Palestine Liberation Organization headed by Mahmoud Abbas, and emphasized that "peace and security in the Middle East region, as a strategic option, will only be achieved with the end of the Israeli occupation."
The 57-member body of Muslim-majority countries declared that Trump's plan "lacks the minimum requirements of justice and destroys the foundations of peace, including the agreed legal and international terms of reference for a peaceful solution and the need to respect and recognize the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people, including the right to national independence and of Palestine refugees to return."
The resolution expressed "regret at the biased approach of the 'plan' that fully adopts the Israeli narrative and endorses the annexation of vast areas of the occupied land of the State of Palestine, under the pretext of security for Israel, the illegal occupying power, in flagrant violation of the principles of international law, the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force, the United Nations Charter, and relevant international resolutions."
According to the resolution, Israel is "responsible for the deterioration of the situation on the ground because of its denial of relevant agreements, its defiance of international legitimacy and the continuation of the policies of colonization, annexation, settlement expansion, discrimination and ethnic cleansing, which have been perpetrated against the Palestinian people in the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem."
Along with warning Israel against making any further moves "to consolidate its colonial occupation in the territory of the State of Palestine," the OIC called on the international community to reject and confront "any action or proposal that is inconsistent with international law and relevant United Nations resolutions."
The resolution came just two days after the Arab League also rejected Trump's proposal, concluding that "it does not meet the minimum rights and aspirations of Palestinian people," and vowed to not cooperate with the U.S. efforts to implement the plan.
Abbas, the Palestinian Authority president, announced at the Arab League meeting that in the wake of the plan's unveiling, "we've informed the Israeli side ... that there will be no relations at all with them and the United States including security ties." The Palestinian leader has declined to communicate with Trump by phone or letter.
Other critics of the proposal—which Trump introduced at the White House week with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu by his side—have denounced it as an "annexation plan." Last week, Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) called it "shameful and disingenuous" while Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), a 2020 White House hopeful, warned that the plan "will only perpetuate the conflict."
The OIC resolution also came as Agence-France Presse reported that the United States requested a closed-door United Nations Security Council meeting Thursday for a presentation by Jared Kushner, Trump's son-in-law and senior adviser, who oversaw the development of the administration's plan.
That meeting would occur just days before Abbas is set to arrive at the U.N. on Feb. 11 "to express opposition to the U.S. plan and to demand adherence to international law," AFP noted. "On the occasion of Abbas' visit, the Palestinians have indicated they plan to submit a draft resolution to the Security Council, through Tunisia, a non-permanent member of the council."
'My Word Stands': Sanders Co-Chair Nina Turner Offends MSNBC Pundits by Calling Billionaire Bloomberg an 'Oligarch'
"Not sure why this is even a discussion but by any reasonable historical or comparative standard Michael Bloomberg is literally the definition of an oligarch."
by
Eoin Higgins, staff writer
https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/02/03/my-word-stands-sanders-co-chair-nina-turner-offends-msnbc-pundits-calling?
Nina Turner, a national co-chair of the Bernie Sanders campaign, left an MSNBC panel in shock Monday evening after she referred to billionaire Mike Bloomberg as an "oligarch" who bought his way into the presidential race.
"We should be ashamed of that, as Americans, as people that believe in democracy, that the oligarchs—if you have more money, you can buy your way," said Turner.
Turner referred specifically to the Democratic National Committee (DNC) opening the door for the billionaire financier and media mogul to participate in upcoming debates. The allowance for the former mayor of New York City was not one afforded to Sens. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) and Cory Booker (D-N.J.) or to former Housing and Urban Development Secretary Julián Castro, as Turner pointed out when pressed on her language by MSNBC's Chris Matthews.
"He is" an oligarch, said Turner. "He skipped Iowa. Iowans should be insulted. Buying his way into this race, period. The DNC changed the rules. They didn't change it for Senator Harris. They wouldn't change it for Senator Booker. They didn't change it for Secretary Castro."
"Not sure why this is even a discussion but by any reasonable historical or comparative standard Michael Bloomberg is literally the definition of an oligarch," tweeted historian Patrick Wyman.
Intercept editor Glenn Greenwald, quoting Wyman, explained why the term was under discussion: American exceptionalism and centrist fears of a rising Sanders.
Turner's response provoked outrage and upset from MSNBC contributor and The Root editor Jason Johnson, who took issue with Turner's assertion that Bloomberg, who has spent $250 million of his own money on his campaign and whose exception to the debate rules came just months after donating $325,000 to the DNC, was an oligarch.
"Calling Mike Bloomberg an oligarch has implications in this country are unfair and unreasonable," said Johnson.
Johnson claimed that the word would evoke "a rich person who got their money off of oil in Russia, who is taking advantage of a broken and dysfunctional system."
As Common Dreams reported in October, the 400 richest Americans have a lower tax rate than the rest of the country.
"It's dismissive, unfair and the kind of thing that blows up in your face if you become the nominee and you have to work with Mike Bloomberg three or four months from now," Johnson added. "That's the issue Sanders people never want to remember."
Turner dismissed the criticisms after a lengthy back and forth when Matthews asked her if she wanted to use a different word to describe the mayor.
"No, he doesn't tell me what to say or how to change my words," she said of Johnson. "My word stands!"
The former state Senator doubled down on Twitter.
Of Course Michael Bloomberg Is an Oligarch
Richard Eskow / Common Dreams
https://www.truthdig.com/articles/of-course-michael-bloomberg-is-an-oligarch/
A recent exchange on MSNBC turned viral after Nina Turner, a national campaign co-chair for Bernie Sanders, described billionaire Michael Bloomberg as an “oligarch.” That drew a heated response from MSNBC contributor and political science professor Jason Johnson, who insisted that Turner’s word choice was unfair and inaccurate.
That’s absurd. By any common definition, Bloomberg’s an oligarch. He wants to buy your vote. Based on his record, he’s also coming for your Social Security.
After this exchange, Sen. Turner tweeted, “I may not have a PhD (yet!) but I DO have the good sense of knowing what makes for Oligarchy.”
Hey, I’m not a clockmaker, but I know what time it is.
My social media feed is filled with Democrats celebrating Bloomberg’s return to the Democratic Party, his candidacy, and his pledge to up to a billion dollars to defeat Trump. (Few, if any, of these Democrats are repeating a line of attack often used against Sanders—that he’s not really a Democrat—despite the fact that Bloomberg is a former Republican who only rejoined the Democratic Party two years ago.)
Think again.
The Video
A brief recap of the “oligarch” argument: Turner, Johnson, and Chris Matthews were discussing the Democratic National Committee’s last-minute rules change, which allowed Bloomberg into the next debate after he wrote it a large check.
“We should be ashamed of that as Americans, people who believe in democracy,” said Sen. Turner, “that the oligarchs, if you have more money you can buy your way.”
When asked if she thought Bloomberg was an oligarch, Turner didn’t hesitate. “He is,” she said, “buying his way into the race.”
Johnson insisted this was “name-calling,” and that a label like “oligarch” has “implications in this country that I think are unfair and unreasonable.”
But is it true? Some landmark political science studies—and most dictionaries—say that it is.
Is This Country an Oligarchy?
Merriam-Webster defines an “oli·gar·chy” as follows:
1 : government by the few
2 : a government in which a small group exercises control especially for corrupt and selfish purposes; also: a group exercising such control
3 : an organization under oligarchic control
Does that describe our government? Political scientists Martin Gilens and Benjamin Page found that “Economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence.”
Gilens and Page didn’t use the word “oligarchy,” but those elites and groups represent only a small percentage of the population, so a number of the journalists who covered their work did.
In a related finding, political scientist Thomas Ferguson and his colleagues found “the relations between money and major party votes in all elections for the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives from 1980 to 2014 are well approximated by straight lines.”
Money doesn’t just talk, it votes. That’s oligarchy.
But is Michael Bloomberg an Oligarch?
An “oligarch,” according to the Cambridge American Dictionary, is “one of a small group of powerful people who control a country or an industry.”
Is Michael Bloomberg such a person? Maybe he’s just really rich and doesn’t control that much. But let’s have some background.
With an estimated net worth of more than $60 billion, Bloomberg is the twelfth-richest person on the planet and the ninth-richest person in the United States. That’s a pretty small group of people. But do they control the country? Ferguson et al. found that campaign cash drives election outcomes. That means campaign donors largely control the process.
Gilens and Page found that wealthy people and interests usually get what they want. The rest of us usually don’t, unless what we want is also what they want. The fact that progressives like some of Bloomberg’s positions doesn’t undermine these findings. In fact, it reinforces them.
Bloomberg hasn’t just given money to a number of campaigns. He also controls a media empire. In true oligarchical fashion, he decreed years ago that his news outlets would not cover his political career. He said recently that it would not cover his rivals’ campaigns, either — a move that drew criticism from journalists and an ethics professor. Less than a month later, however, Bloomberg News violated that edict by running a hit piece against Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren.
That’s oligarchical behavior.
Bloomberg’s own political history is an exercise in the use of oligarchical wealth to change electoral outcomes. He was unpopular when he first ran for mayor of New York—a situation he rectified by dramatically outspending his rivals. Even so, Bloomberg only eked out a two-point victory against Democrat Mark Green in his first mayoral race, after outspending him five to one.
The argument between Turner and Johnson involved another compelling example of Bloomberg-as-oligarch. The DNC’s rules said each candidate had to have a minimum number of donors to quality for the debate stage. That rule wasn’t overruled for Cory Booker or Julian Castro, despite calls for greater diversity in the race. But it was overturned for Bloomberg, who had donated more than $1 million to the DNC and a related organization a few short weeks before.
Will Michael Bloomberg Cut Your Social Security?
If you thought there were problems with Joe Biden’s Social Security record, wait until you see Bloomberg’s. His record of espousing austerity economics has including a special enthusiasm for cutting Medicare and Social Security.
As he told Face the Nation in 2013:
No program to reduce the deficit makes any sense whatsoever unless you address the issue of entitlements, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, interest payment on the debt, which you can’t touch, and defense spending. Everything else is tiny compared to that.
Bloomberg has called for raising the retirement age, a move that would cut Social Security benefits for all retirees and create physical hardship for many older workers.
These are bad ideas. They make for even worse politics. Voters love Social Security. A Pew study released in March 2019 found that “74 percent of Americans say Social Security benefits should not be reduced in any way.”
And voters don’t like entitlement cuts, or the Bloomberg-endorsed thinking behind them. That can be seen in a GBAO/Center for American Progress survey conducted in October 2019. Less than half of Republicans, one-third of Democrats, and roughly one-third of independents agreed with the Bloomberg-like statement that “our national debt is way too high, and we need to cut government spending on the biggest programs like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.”
Trump has given Democrats an opening on Social Security. His administration is currently engaged in a de facto program to cut Social Security disability benefits, by forcing millions of disabled people to endure the punishing process of eligibility screening as often as every six months. Newsweek reports that the Social Security Administration concluded that this would lead to $2.6 billion in benefit cuts and an additional 2.6 million case reviews between 2020 and 2029. It’s a brutal assault on the health and security of a vulnerable population.
Trump also said he intends to pursue additional cuts to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid after the upcoming election, when he no longer has to worry about public opinion. Worse, he did so at the annual gathering of billionaires in Davos. That reinforces the perception that he’s imposing hardship on the majority to help a privileged few.
Most leading Democrats understand that there is wide support for protecting and expanding Social Security. Most leading candidates—including Joe Biden—have offered some form of Social Security expansion. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has embraced the idea in principle. There’s an opportunity here—if Bloomberg doesn’t stop them from taking it.
What about inequality?
Bloomberg has sometimes embraced tax increases, but he has long opposed tax hikes that reduce inequality by targeting the wealthy.
In fact, he called the idea “class warfare” in a 2012 op-ed for the Wall Street Journal. The op-ed was called “Federal Budgets and Class Warfare,” and it trotted out some hoary clichés about “class war”—which is more like asymmetrical warfare on behalf of the rich—along with other stale and debunked right-wing talking points. Bloomberg wrote, for example, that “the top 5% already pay 59% of all federal income taxes, while 42% of filers have no federal income tax bill at all.”
That statistic omits state, local, and sales taxes, so it doesn’t prove Bloomberg’s point. What it does demonstrate is the extent of today’s income inequality.
Now that he’s running, Bloomberg’s had a seeming change of heart. He has a plan to raise taxes on the wealthy and corporations—the same idea he bitterly condemned in 2012. It’s a modest plan, compared to Sanders and Warren, but it’s not bad. The question is, does he mean it?
Bloomberg has close ties with organizations that have long campaigned for deficit reduction and against Social Security and Medicare. His only recorded complaint against past bipartisan budget-cutting proposals, in fact, was that they didn’t go far enough—a statement that won him praise from the anti-entitlement “Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.” The Fiscal Times quoted Bloomberg as saying Democrats “have to face the reality that we need more spending cuts, including reasonable entitlement reform.”
(Bloomberg’s “class warfare” screed was posted on his website, but has since been removed.)
The text of his “this deal doesn’t cut spending enough” speech has also been removed from the CRFB website—(apparently there’s a lot of that going around.)
There are other reasons to worry about Candidate Bloomberg.
Given his virtually unlimited resources, Bloomberg could theoretically win both the nomination and the presidency. By my calculation, Bloomberg could pay the same “unit price” he paid to make himself mayor of New York—$88 per voter—and make himself president for $12 billion. He’d even have $50 billion set aside for a rainy day.
The nomination would presumably cost less than the presidency, so he has a better shot at that. But it would be a bad look for the Democrats to become the first party in modern history whose candidate openly bought the nomination. But then, Bloomberg’s used to getting the rules changed just for him. When he wanted to run for a third term as mayor, Bloomberg used all the tools at his disposal (one of which led to an ethics complaint) to change the city’s rules. Once he got what he wanted, Bloomberg then pushed to change the rules back. It seems that some privileges should be labeled, “for oligarchs only.”
Democrats should also be troubled by Bloomberg’s authoritarian streak. As mayor, Bloomberg had a history of suppressing peaceful demonstrations, sometimes with brute force. His police spied on Muslim gatherings and engaged in racially-biased “stop and frisk” tactics that expanded sevenfold under his leadership. He took advantaged of privatized public spaces, including Zuccotti Park, to suspend basic liberties within them, while renting out his police force to the banks the movement was protesting. His unconstitutional suppression of Occupy even included the needless destruction of the movement’s library.
As Conor Friedensdorf writes in The Atlantic, comparing Bloomberg to Trump:
Had Trump spent years sending armed agents of the state to frisk people of color, 90 percent of them innocent, would you forgive him? How about if Trump sent undercover cops to spy on Muslims with no basis for the targeting other than the mere fact of their religious identity? What if he thwarted the ability of anti-war protesters to march in New York City?
But it’s okay to take his money, right?
If he doesn’t win the nomination, Bloomberg will once again play the role of billionaire donor. After lamely arguing that Bernie Sanders is a “rich guy”—as if a million or two means anything to billionaire—Prof. Johnson objected to calling Bloomberg an “oligarch” because it might make him decide to close his checkbook. Johnson said:
It’s the kind of thing that blows up in your face if you become the nominee and you have to work with Bloomberg three or four months from now. That’s the issue that Sanders’s people never seem to want to remember.
Johnson didn’t seem to realize that his argument—“Politicians shouldn’t make the billionaire mad or he won’t give them his money”—is a textbook example of oligarchy in action.
Maybe Sanders’ people do remember. Maybe they just don’t care.
Bloomberg says he’ll unconditionally offer financial support to any Democratic nominee, including Sanders and Warren. That sounds good. But “unconditional” isn’t Bloomberg’s usual M.O. As the New York Times reported in 2018, when he donated heavily to Democrats running for Congress (and one or two Republicans):
Bloomberg] has indicated to aides that he only wants to support candidates who share his relatively moderate political orientation, avoiding nominees hailing from the populist left.
If that means embracing Bloomberg’s views on Social Security and “class war,” Democrats could be trading electability for cash. Beware of billionaires bearing gifts—especially when one of those gifts is the billionaire himself.
#TomPerezResign: DNC Chair Under Fire for Iowa Disaster, Favoritism for Billionaire Oligarch Bloomberg
"The Dem establishment has been screaming that our movement is sowing divisiveness and is going to ruin party unity but they're nailing that to the wall all by themselves."
by
Eoin Higgins, staff writer
136 Comments
https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/02/04/tomperezresign-dnc-chair-under-fire-iowa-disaster-favoritism-billionaire-oligarch?
Calls for Tom Perez to step down as the head of the Democratic National Committee grew louder Tuesday in the aftermath of the Iowa caucus fiasco in which party mismanagement of the process delayed the results from Monday night's contest and left the 2020 Democratic presidential primary in disarray.
"The Iowa caucus debacle is so insulting to the candidates, their volunteers, the caucus-goers, and the DNC's own process," tweeted HuffPost senior reporter Zach Carter. "Tom Perez has to resign."
Multiple petitions on Change.org called on Perez to relinquish his position as chair of the DNC. One of the most popular ones had over 13,600 signatures at press time. #ResignTomPerez trended on Twitter overnight.
While Perez and the DNC were not technically in charge of the process Monday night, the national party's influence on the process likely led to the caucus meltdown. Top-level party officials' concerns about Russian interference in the 2016 election have created a cottage industry of technology security experts offering protective services for elections.
On Monday an app developed to report results by little-known but party-connected tech company Shadow encountered problems, throwing the entire process into chaos.
As Common Dreams reported, secrecy around the app, its developer, and the process by which it failed have sown distrust in the primary process among the Democratic rank and file. Perez's position at the head of the party has made him the focus of that anger and frustration.
The anger at Perez had been brewing for days.
On Friday, news that the DNC was going to adjust its debate rules to allow billionaire Mike Bloomberg onstage drew outrage and accusations that the party was allowing the former New York City mayor to buy his way into the election—and the beginning of the latest wave of calls for Perez's resignation. Activist Shaun King, a supporter of the Democratic presidential bid of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), referred to both issues in a tweet on Tuesday.
"I'll be glad to see Tom Perez step down from the DNC," said King. "After a clusterfuck of an election in a state the DNC had a year to prepare for, that was preceded by the DNC changing the rules for a billionaire to buy his way into the race, the man has lost the respect of millions."
Sanders supporter and Democratic Party activist Kat Brezler echoed King's concerns over the direction of the party and emphasized the damage the DNC was doing to the institution.
"The Dem establishment has been screaming that our movement is sowing divisiveness and is going to ruin party unity but they're nailing that to the wall all by themselves," tweeted Brezler. "Changing rules for the DNC threshold for debate access to allow billionaires but not PoC candidates and this!"
Ultimately, Vice senior staff writer Laura Wagner tweeted, the lesson is that the party will stymie Sanders' chances one way or another and the Vermont senator's supporters will need to accept the need to fight on a number of fronts to succeed.
"The DNC is corrupt or incompetent or both and if Bernie Sanders wins the nomination it will be in spite of his party's leadership," said Wagner.
Senate Republicans Acquit Trump in 'Cowardly and Disgraceful Final Act to Their Show Trial'
"Make no mistake about it, this was nothing more than an attempted partisan coverup for the shameless and illegal conduct of Donald Trump."
by
Jon Queally, staff writer
72 Comments
https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/02/05/senate-republicans-acquit-trump-cowardly-and-disgraceful-final-act-their-show-trial?
In what critics called the final act of a "ham-handed coverup" by Republican lawmakers, President Donald Trump was acquitted by the U.S. Senate on Wednesday on both impeachment counts—one for abuse of power and one for obstruction of Congress—approved by the U.S. House of Representatives last month.
In the first vote on abuse of power, the vote was 48 in favor of conviction and removal of the president with just one Republican, Sen. Mitt Romney of Utah, joining with the 47 members of the Democratic caucus. All 52 other Republicans in the Senate voted to acquit.
In the second vote on obstruction of power, the vote was 47-53, strictly along party lines.
Immediately following the vote, progressives expressed outrageand condemned the senators who voted to acquit the president.
Karen Hobert Flynn, president of Common Cause, was among those who said that while the outcome was not unexpected, it would not soon be forgotten.
"Americans deserved the truth, but they got a ham-handed coverup instead," Hobert Flynn said. "The Republican majority in the United States Senate denied the American people the truth and violated their oaths of office in a fruitless attempt to sweep Trump's illegal acts under the rug."
"In a cowardly and disgraceful final act to their show trial," she continued, "Senate Republicans—with the notable exception of Mitt Romney—buried their heads in the sand and voted to condone President Trump's blatant abuse of the powers of the presidency. Make no mistake about it, this was nothing more than an attempted partisan coverup for the shameless and illegal conduct of Donald Trump."
"This is not an 'acquittal,' this is a cover-up," said Stand Up America founder and president Sean Eldridge in a statement. "What Republican senators just did threatens the foundation of our democracy and upends the rule of law."
Eldridge called the Senate vote part of a "sham trial that hid evidence from the American people," and accused Republicans of choosing "partisan cowardice over patriotism."
"The American people will not take this assault on our democracy sitting down," said Eldridge. "We will organize like never before to hold Donald Trump and Senate Republicans accountable at the ballot box this November."
Rahna Epting, executive director of MoveOn Political Action, echoed the call for electoral payback. "Republican senators may have failed to do their job, but voters won't fail to do ours," said Epting. "We have one message for Donald Trump and the Senate Republicans who time and time again have helped cover up his abuses: We will see you at the ballot box."
"This trial may close, but this movement continues," said By the People executive director Alexandra Flores-Quilty.
Flores-Quilty added that her group and others would continue to push to hold both Trump and Republican lawmakers accountable.
"Just as past Americans came together to defeat kings and Jim Crow, we will unite to make this country what it should be," said Flores-Quilty. "A government of, by, and for the people."
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)