[Peace-discuss] impeachment

Mon Mar 18 22:12:43 UTC 2019

The election of Trump was, after a fashion, a populist uprising.

What, if anything, could we do to have more influence over the outcome of
the next such populist uprising?

===

Robert Reuel Naiman
Policy Director
Just Foreign Policy
www.justforeignpolicy.org
naiman at justforeignpolicy.org
(202) 448-2898 x1

On Mon, Mar 18, 2019 at 5:01 PM C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss <
peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote:

> A. Lincoln (himself rather good at fooling people) is supposed to have
> said (in a burst of optimism),
> "You can fool all the people some of the time and some of the people all
> the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.”
>
> But the American ascendency has perhaps got better at it in a century and
> a half.
>
> It will be harder for the populist uprising to succeed, but the 'major
> parties’ will probably not be able to stop it
> - tho’ they’re willing to risk a lot of damage to try.
>
>
>
> > On Mar 18, 2019, at 12:21 PM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss <
> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Well, "all of the above."
> >
> > But the way our elections work, the clamor doesn't lead to the outcome.
> >
> > Obama ran against endless wars. He got elected, and continued them.
> >
> > Trump ran against endless wars. He got elected, and continued them.
> >
> > So, by itself, the clamor isn't doing squat. If we want to get different
> outcomes, we need to do something else besides merely trying to fan the
> flames of the clamor.
> >
> > On Sun, Mar 17, 2019 at 7:11 PM C G Estabrook <cgestabrook at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Quite agree with the eggs/basket problem.
> >
> > But remember who it was who withdrew US troops from SE Asia two
> generations ago.
> >
> > Someone equally unlikely may withdraw US troops from SW Asia.
> >
> > But it probably won’t result from a deal in a clapped-out Congress.
> >
> > It will probably result form a popular (populist) demand for the
> abandonment of Obama/Bush neolib/neocon policies - a demand already
> underway. (It elected Trump.)
> >
> > That’s why the US political establishment is so determined to focus
> popular attention on Trump: it distracts from the policies people actually
> object to - more war and more inequality…
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Mar 17, 2019, at 6:02 PM, Robert Naiman <
> naiman at justforeignpolicy.org> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > I like Tulsi. I sent her money. I'm talking to her people all the
> time. But given where things stand now, I don't want to put all my eggs in
> that basket. And, it will help Tulsi if we build support for the idea that
> unconstitutional war is totally unacceptable. There are already House Dems
> talking about introducing articles of impeachment on Trump that would just
> focus on two things: Yemen War Powers and the emergency declaration, two
> issues where there is bipartisan support for pushback against Trump, as
> evidenced by the recent votes in Congress. I want to build support for
> those House Dems, help give them courage to stand up to Pelosi's bullying.
> It took us a long time to get House Dems to stand up to Pelosi's bullying
> on Yemen War Powers. I want to speed things up so we can end this stinking
> Yemen war now. I don't want to wait until January 2021 for a chance to end
> the Yemen war.
> > >
> > > That's why we did this alert today:
> > >
> > > Congress: Threaten Trump with Impeachment If He Doesn’t End the Saudi
> War in Yemen
> > >
> https://www.change.org/p/congress-threaten-trump-with-impeachment-if-he-doesn-t-end-the-saudi-war-in-yemen
> > >
> > > On Sun, Mar 17, 2019 at 5:38 PM C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss <
> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote:
> > >
> https://www.facebook.com/TulsiGabbard/videos/1305160292974284/?notif_id=1552858953272210&notif_t=live_video
> > >
> > >
> > > > On Mar 17, 2019, at 5:19 PM, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss <
> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Tulsi Gabbard.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >> On Mar 17, 2019, at 1:51 PM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss <
> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> Who is going to "bring the troops home"?
> > > >>
> > > >> If we can't make Trump do it, and we can't make Pelosi do it, who
> is going to do it?
> > > >>
> > > >> If we want to end wars, we're going to have the change the
> calculations of the Trumps and the Pelosis about who they have to answer to
> on this stuff.
> > > >>
> > > >> I completely agree that swapping out one Trump for another Trump or
> one Pelosi for another Pelosi isn't going to change anything by itself,
> unless we change the perception of the Trumps and the Pelosis about who
> they have to answer to, not just when they're running, but after they're
> elected.
> > > >>
> > > >> But how are we going to do that? We might as well practice on the
> Trump and the Pelosi that we have. First of all, we might move them. Second
> of all, we might get better at it if we practice. Third, we might send a
> useful message to the future Trumps and Pelosis: this is what we're going
> to do to you if you cross us, and we're getting better and better at it.
> > > >>
> > > >> ===
> > > >>
> > > >> Robert Reuel Naiman
> > > >> Policy Director
> > > >> Just Foreign Policy
> > > >> www.justforeignpolicy.org
> > > >> naiman at justforeignpolicy.org
> > > >> (202) 448-2898 x1
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> On Sun, Mar 17, 2019 at 12:12 PM C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss <
> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote:
> > > >> There are grounds (aggressive war and war provocations are ‘high
> crimes and misdemeanors,’ for which the Constitution - article two, section
> four - says impeachment is the remedy) to impeach the president, but it’s
> silly to spend time doing so.
> > > >>
> > > >> Even if Trump is impeached and removed from office, those crimes
> will continue.
> > > >>
> > > >> But the political establishment (the Clinton campaign, the
> ‘intelligence community,’ the Pentagon, main-stream media pundits et al. )
> want you to concentrate on removing Trump - a sure indication that it’s
> meant to distract you from the real populist challenge to the US economic
> elite - the one-percent -  whose agent that establishment is.
> > > >>
> > > >> Trump became president because enough Americans understood that he
> represented a challenge to the neoconservative (more war and war
> provocations) and neoliberal (more economic inequality) policies of the
> Obama and Bush administrations. But Trump’s challenge was contained and
> reversed by that establishment, as murderous and disgusting neocons like
> Pompeo and Bolton achieved power.
> > > >>
> > > >> For all his bluster, Trump is the weakest US president since Calvin
> Coolidge, and his administration continues the criminal policies of the
> previous administrations, with largely verbal changes.
> > > >>
> > > >> The establishment clearly wants us to be distracted by the
> melodrama of  a presidential impeachment, to turn aside complaints about
> their war and austerity policies. We shouldn’t allow it.
> > > >>
> > > >> Bring all US troops home, and provide for the economic well-being
> of all Americans, with a universal basic income, Medicare for all, and free
> education. That’s what our rulers fear, because it will cost them money.
> > > >>
> > > >> —CGE
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>> On Mar 16, 2019, at 3:54 PM, David Johnson <
> davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net> wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Bob,
> > > >>>
> > > >>> That is an excellent analysis and strategy !
> > > >>>
> > > >>> David J.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> From: Robert Naiman [mailto:naiman at justforeignpolicy.org]
> > > >>> Sent: Saturday, March 16, 2019 10:11 AM
> > > >>> To: David Johnson
> > > >>> Cc: C G Estabrook; Peace Discuss; Ian Welsh
> > > >>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] impeachment
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Yes, it makes a difference. I wrote about this, see the link. One
> thing is Nancy Pelosi's formal power, under the rules, and the other thing
> is her political-ideological power to "impose the Party Line" [i.e., her
> line], which is fueled by money, exactly as you say.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> But money is not the whole story. Part of it is gaslighting,
> psychological warfare, groupthink, herd behavior, Democrats thinking that
> they need to comply with Nancy Pelosi more than they have to. This part is
> not usually exposed, because usually Nancy Pelosi and her henchmen work
> effectively to keep issues and ideas off the table that could expose it -
> like impeachment. This is why, if you hate Nancy Pelosi's totalitarian rule
> over House Democrats on foreign policy, the idea of impeachment is
> potentially very interesting, because it's an opportunity to split House
> Democrats from Pelosi, where the other dynamics are not so strong. The
> moneyed interests don't have a clear dog in the fight. The
> Pentagon-industrial complex doesn't have a clear dog in the fight. AIPAC
> doesn't have a clear dog in the fight. The South Florida Democrats who are
> catering to right-wing Cuban exiles on Venezuela policy don't have a clear
> dog in the fight. So this could be a great fight to pick with Nancy Pelosi.
> A whole bunch of Democrats want to impeach Trump, and the interests that
> ordinarily keep Nancy Pelosi strong don't have a big dog in the fight. So
> she is vulnerable. It might be possible to weaken her, by starting a real
> fight among House Democrats about impeachment.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Look what happened in the fight over the demand of Nancy Pelosi
> and the AIPAC Democrats to censure Ilhan Omar. "Everybody who's anybody"
> expected Nancy Pelosi and the AIPAC Democrats to get their way. Of course.
> In a confrontation between Nancy Pelosi and the AIPAC Democrats on one side
> and Ilhan Omar on the other, who's going to win? Nancy Pelosi and the AIPAC
> Democrats, of course. Who has all the power? Nancy Pelosi and the AIPAC
> Democrats. Who has no power? Ilhan Omar. Who's going to win? Nancy Pelosi
> and the AIPAC Democrats. Of course. Duh. Slam dunk. Case closed. Put a fork
> in it, it's done.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> But that's not what happened. What happened instead was that there
> was an uprising, an intifada, if you will. There was a backlash of support
> for Ilhan Omar, maybe not agreeing with exactly what she said, but opposing
> singling her out for criticism with a House resolution. If you want to have
> a House resolution against bigotry, these people said, fine. Have it be
> against all bigotry, not just anti-Semitism, so we're not just singling out
> Ilhan Omar. And that's what happened. That's what happened because of the
> uprising.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> And that's why we should press on the idea of impeachment now. So
> we can try to provoke another uprising against Nancy Pelosi's totalitarian
> rule over House Democrats, which is a big, big obstacle to efforts to end
> the wars and prevent new ones.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> ===
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Robert Reuel Naiman
> > > >>> Policy Director
> > > >>> Just Foreign Policy
> > > >>> www.justforeignpolicy.org
> > > >>> naiman at justforeignpolicy.org
> > > >>> (202) 448-2898 x1
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> On Sat, Mar 16, 2019 at 9:37 AM David Johnson via Peace-discuss <
> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote:
> > > >>>> Election night, November 2006 Mid-Term Elections ;
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Within minutes of the national media announcing that the
> Democratic party had won control of the House and Senate, the news coverage
> switched live to cover Nancy Pelosi’s response. As soon as she walked up to
> the podium the very first words out of her mouth were ; “ Impeachment is
> off the table, impeachment is off the table “.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> She alone may not be able to block impeachment but her INFLUENCE
> and CONTROL of the vast majority of Democratic House members ( via
> corporate campaign contributions and committee assignments, etc. ) DOES
> make a difference in that she CAN block and / or defeat any impeachment
> resolution.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> David J.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> From: Peace-discuss [mailto:
> peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of Robert Naiman via
> Peace-discuss
> > > >>>> Sent: Saturday, March 16, 2019 8:10 AM
> > > >>>> To: C G Estabrook
> > > >>>> Cc: Peace Discuss; Ian Welsh
> > > >>>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] impeachment
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Here's a key thing that everyone needs to know about this.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> IT"S NOT PELOSI'S DECISION WHETHER TO IMPEACH TRUMP OR NOT.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Impeachment concerns the Constitutional privileges of the House.
> A resolution introducing articles of impeachment is a privileged
> resolution, JUST LIKE A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO WITHDRAW U.S. FORCES FROM
> AN UNAUTHORIZED WAR. It must go to the floor for a vote if the sponsor
> insists. NANCY PELOSI CANNOT BLOCK IT.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> See here:
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Let’s Impeach Trump If He Continues the Yemen War
> > > >>>> https://www.facebook.com/robert.naiman/posts/10158094853692656
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> ===
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Robert Reuel Naiman
> > > >>>> Policy Director
> > > >>>> Just Foreign Policy
> > > >>>> www.justforeignpolicy.org
> > > >>>> naiman at justforeignpolicy.org
> > > >>>> (202) 448-2898 x1
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 8:16 PM C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss <
> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote:
> > > >>>>> <https://chomsky.info/1990____-2/>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> "If the Nuremberg laws were applied, then every post-war
> American president would have been hanged."
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> The point is easily extended to all recent presidents. Of course
> Trump should be impeached (like Obama) for ‘aggressive war,’ under
> Nuremberg’s defintion.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> —CGE
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>> On Mar 15, 2019, at 6:53 PM, Ian Welsh <
> noreply+feedproxy at google.com> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> Ian Welsh
> > > >>>>>> There Is No Downside To Impeaching Trump For Democrats
> > > >>>>>> Posted: 14 Mar 2019 04:57 PM PDT
> > > >>>>>> Nancy Pelosi recently said:
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> Impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless there’s
> something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, I don’t think we
> should go down that path, because it divides the country. And he’s just not
> worth it.
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> I note, first of all, that Nancy Pelosi ruled out impeaching
> George Bush, so her reluctance to impeach for clear crimes is consistent
> with her record. I never understood why others thought that Pelosi would be
> pro-impeachment. The idea that she’s some partisan fighter is contradicted
> by her record. Pelosi is what she has, she has beliefs, and those beliefs
> include that the right is respectable and that left are unrealistic losers
> (as when she dismissed the Green New Deal.)
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> But let’s leave Pelosi aside for a moment. The Democrats have
> control of the House. They can impeach. They cannot convict in the Senate,
> but impeachment is certainly possible.
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> Why would they want to?
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> Because it would cripple Trump and Republicans. During the
> period of the impeachment, Republicans would be able to get virtually
> nothing done, except by executive fiat.
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> Because the impeachment hearings would completely dominate
> months of news cycles: constantly hammering in every illegal, crooked,
> corrupt and cruel thing that Trump has done.
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> This is largely a no lose, if you were actually partisan: there
> isn’t a lot that House Dems can get thru anyway while the Republicans
> control the Presidency, Senate and Supreme Court. You can’t actually get
> most of your legislation thru without crippling compromises so this is fine.
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> Control the news cycle; make sure bad legislation doesn’t pass
> for months; keep Trump tied down fighting impeachment and on top of that
> spend months talking about every shitty thing he has done.
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> Some may argue impeachment might “backfire”, that Americans
> “want to see legislators working”, but that sort of argument has been made
> for decades. Contempt for Congress isn’t going to get much worse (it hardly
> can), and if working means doing the wrong thing, it’s better not to.
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> In the face of all the positives, like dragging Trump thru the
> mud, crippling his ability to do anything, and controlling the news cycle,
> impeachment starts looking, politically, like an obvious thing to do.
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> And if you actually care about justice, well, Trump is at the
> very least, a walking emoluments violation. He is clearly profiting from
> being President. Carter had to sell his peanut farm, Trump hasn’t even put
> everything into blind trusts and many of his businesses are clearly
> profiting from his Presidency.
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> Bush should have been impeached. Trump should be impeached.
> Ironically, Clinton, who was impeached, shouldn’t have been (lying about
> consensual sex is a ridiculously low bar.)
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> Pelosi made the wrong decision with Bush. She appears in danger
> of making the wrong decision here. I doubt she’ll change her mind, but I
> hope I’m wrong.
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> The results of the work I do, like this article, are free, but
> food isn’t, so if you value my work, please DONATE or SUBSCRIBE.
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> Facebook  Twitter Google+ WhatsApp LinkedIn
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> You are subscribed to email updates from Ian Welsh.
> > > >>>>>> To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now.
> Email delivery powered by Google
> > > >>>>>> Google, 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043,
> United States
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> _______________________________________________
> > > >>>>> Peace-discuss mailing list
> > > >>>>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> > > >>>>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
> > > >>>> _______________________________________________
> > > >>>> Peace-discuss mailing list
> > > >>>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> > > >>>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
> > > >>
> > > >> _______________________________________________
> > > >> Peace-discuss mailing list
> > > >> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> > > >> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
> > > >> _______________________________________________
> > > >> Peace-discuss mailing list
> > > >> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> > > >> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Peace-discuss mailing list
> > > > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> > > > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Peace-discuss mailing list
> > > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> > > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Peace-discuss mailing list
> > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
>
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20190318/5aea17f4/attachment-0001.html>