[Peace-discuss] impeachment

Mon Mar 18 23:03:20 UTC 2019

Trump has clearly fallen into the hands of the neocons. Bolton, Pompeo,
Abrams. Can't get any more neocon than that.

If there's something we could do in such a situation in the future, why
don't we do it now? Why haven't we done it already? What is that thing that
we could do? Let's do it now.

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 5:56 PM C. G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss <
peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote:

>  Yes, it was.
>
> We should see that the winner does not fall into the hands of the neocons
> and neolibs who ran the previous administrations.
>
> On Mar 18, 2019, at 5:12 PM, Robert Naiman <naiman at justforeignpolicy.org>
> wrote:
>
>
> 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
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20190318/0894011a/attachment-0001.html>