Decision Time

Vote to Convict, Then Move to Censure
I didn't watch much of the so-called trial, but that was too much. 

There was a huge amount of discourse, from the counsel of the defendant in particular, about whether the two articles approved in the House were "impeachable" offenses.  Logically, that was completely erroneous:  the House approved the articles, and the Representatives, not the Senators, decide what is impeachable and what is not.  By definition, the House determined that "abuse of power" and "obstruction of Congress" are impeachable offenses.

I would argue that the Trump Impeachment* neither raised, nor lowered, the bar of what is impeachable; however, I would have preferred they include Bribery--specifically named in the constitution as grounds for impeachment, and very arguably an offense committed by Trump. That would've changed the more asinine of the Defense arguments to specifics of "the bribery statute in the US Code" instead.  That would've more successfully focused the debate, such as it was, on the venality of Trump's behavior.  This Year's Model was consistent with precedent and has specific similarity to the cases posed during the administrations of Nixon and Andrew Johnson.

The Senate trial should have been about a different question:  What is the bar for removal from office of a President?  For conviction? For this question, there really is no precedent in the affirmative, though Johnson's case, Bill Clinton's, and now this one will show historical precedents in the negative.  Nixon's arguably presents an example of what would have resulted in conviction (or in an obligatory resignation, as Nixon's was, which functionally works out the same), but that doesn't help too much because of the huge difference in evidence which ultimately was available to Nixon's prosecution after nearly two years of investigations.

The proper way to view this question is one of risk management:  How much risk do we face by allowing this impeached individual to remain in office?  And how severe is the damage, if things go wrong?

The calculation is one which combines time remaining in the term (so should be most strict, in the differing case of  lifetime appointments) along with assessment of the degree of damage, conditioned by the facts revealed in the case.  In that regard, those Republicans who reverted to the argument against removal in an election year, one which appeared stupid on its face, had the germ of a correct idea.  To give an extreme example, the last month of a lame duck Presidency would be a waste of effort for an impeachment-driven trial.  That argument in this case might have had value if it were not for the direct threat Trump's admitted interference posed to the looming election; in this regard we have to credit Pelosi's judgment.

What's the risk that Trump is going to do something unthinkable and damaging to the Constitution of our democratic republic? (alternately, to our society/our humanity/our planet)  It's quite high, as the recent fiasco-doppio of his rash decisions in the Middle East** prove.  Not to mention appeasement of That Country Invading Ukraine. We have a new Trump Unilateral Israel Peace Plan much more likely to spur a violent result than to bring any more peace.  I could go on--the risk is high, and compounded the longer we face it.

So, yeah, there are only arguments for removal, though the risk for acquittal at this moment is much less than it would be, say, in March, 2021+ .  That one about "63 million votes" I find especially shaky. 

Anyway, immediately after the vote to acquit Wednesday***, some intrepid Democratic Senator--Schumer would be the normal one, though I'd prefer someone like our Senator Tom Udall do it--should introduce a motion to censure the President.  The denunciation should be a simple statement that enlisting a foreign government to attack our election in any way is not permissible behavior for a President, nor anyone with an official capacity in the US government.  (Rudy Giuliani's crimes should already be covered elsewhere.)  It should be wordsmithed to maximize the number of Republican Senators who could support it. 

The second censure motion should address the recurrent problem of the disregard the Executive branch has proven to have of the Legislative one, particularly as regards the exclusive prerogative of Congress to control expenditures.  The third should address Attorney General Barr's intentional efforts to mislead the public and Congress on the meaning of the Mueller Report before it was released.

That's enough--for now.  Of course Trump will veto or ignore any censure motions, but they will be on the record, will provide guidance to those who come later, if not to the Dickhead, and should be approved without delay.  At least the first one.

Endorsement for President (20/20 Preface)
I begin by saying, first, this is not a prediction but an expression of my own personal preference.  Second, I have an impressively bad record of picking the person who is ultimately elected President.  I would describe it as disastrous.  Some examples:

• Hillary, 2016 -- OK, I'm in a lot of company, both good and bad;
• Gore, 2000 and 1988 -- In '88, Koch's endorsement killed him (and my hopes to repeal the Reagan Revolution);
• John Glenn, 1984;
• Wesley Clark, 2004. 
• Tom Harkin, 1992 (?)

The one exception has been Barack Obama. So, I write this in spite of my fear that my endorsement  may be like Ed Koch's proverbial kiss of death.  I hope not.

One thing you may accurately conclude is that "electability" was often a factor in my past considerations given where I lie on the political spectrum.   (Another is that I have been really inept at identifying electable candidates.) "Strongly liberal", as they often suggest as the leftmost option in online polls, is not so accurate; I would describe myself as closer to the feared and nowadays unused term "radical", in the sense of seeking fundamental changes. So, my choice each cycle tries to balance the political climate and my sense of possibilities.  (Clark in 2004 was a particular example--I thought he was the perfect guy to deal with Bush's wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and his positions were not at all obnoxious.  He just wasn't right for the times, politically, in the party--like Glenn was not just the Cat to catch the Rat Reagan, my theory in early '84.)

The Much Ballyhooed Endorsement 
My preference for Elizabeth Warren relies on the belief that she is the best candidate to unify the Democratic party and maximize turnout of its supporters in the general election vs. Donald Trump. Among other characteristics, she is a person who is inclusive in her approach, a person who is open to ideas, and one with strong convictions and obvious passion and energy.  In terms of her approach to policy, she goes to the root issues--corruption, inequality, injustice--and develops both the right maximal objectives and the short-term strategies to move toward them. 

I have had a firm intention to avoid criticism of the other Democratic candidates here, as I may be passionately supporting them as the nominee later.   I will go so far as to say that my personal preference is that our "viable" choices not be limited to what I would call the "old B-boys"  (Biden, Bernie, and, yes, Bloomberg). The media seems to me to be prematurely fixated on the story that it is down to Biden vs. Bernie (unless Bloomberg can buy it).

In that regard, I agree with the choice of the New York Times to endorse Warren and Amy Klobuchar.  Warren is the "not B-boy" progressive (leaving aside Tom Steyer), and Klobuchar is the "not B-boy" moderate (leaving aside Pete Buttigieg).  If you believe that women can be a choice that is just as good, if not better, to oppose the Dickhead, then these are sound choices, depending on your degree of "aggression" (as Charles Barkley said the other night, reaching unsuccessfully for the word "progression").   For me, that's Warren, but, as you may see by the above, my second, third, and fourth choices are Klobuchar, Buttigieg (whom I suggest as the VP nominee, for almost any nominee), and Steyer (who I now recognize has added value to the campaign, apart from the mega-dollars he has spent in our general cause, as per Bloomberg).

New Mexico's primary is not until June 6;  95% of delegate numbers will have been determined by then.  So, my vote is about 95% likely to be meaningless, in that someone will have won the nomination by then.  That 5% that remains, though, could be significant in the big picture if no one has established a majority of delegates won.


*Trump I Impeachment, I mean.  Hard to tell how Trump II Impeachment will go at this point.
+Don't even!
**To be clear, to evacuate our troops from NE Syria and to assassinate Qassem Soleimani.  Somewhat fortunately, neither of the two has produced massive warfare and humanitarian catastrophe yet. Nor Trump's walking the talk of 'just walk away' in Idlib.  I repeat, yet.  (added 3/3/20) 
***If you check back, the vote will be just a few days sooner than I thought; it will probably not be as good as the 47-53 I predicted, and the focus, instead of on whether there were 50 votes to convict, ended up being whether there would be witnesses allowed (and whether Mitt Romney would volunteer for a starring role in a chapter in the next volume of Profiles in Courage).  So, while it basically went as I expected, there were surprises.