This Trump–Ukraine Business

There is a myth in the media about impeachment, that it’s some state of being rather than a particular act by the House. It’s not. Impeachment happens when the House approves one or more articles of impeachment against any officer of the executive branch or judicial branch. That’s it. That’s all impeachment is.

Impeachment inquiries are oversight that someone has decided looks like it will probably end in a vote on at least one article of impeachment.

There are no additional powers unlocked by calling oversight an impeachment inquiry. Those who say there are do not know what they are talking about. The House can empower and entrust committees with additional powers or modify their processes, but that has nothing to do with the constitutional power of impeachment and everything to do with the clause that gives the chambers of the legislature control over their own rules.

Now, this business with Trump and Giuliani and a whistleblower (House Intelligence Committee: 26 September 2019: PDF of IC Whistleblower Complaint) and a coverup and seeking dirt on Joe Biden from Ukrainian President Zelenskyy. Is it impeachable conduct, to send your personal attorney under quasi-diplomatic cover to work on getting dirt on a political rival and precondition a phone call with a foreign leader on discussing said dirt, and dangle nearly half a billion dollars and a visit to the White House during that call?

I don’t know. I mean, what is the purpose of government if not to bribe, to conspire to defraud your fellow citizens, to abuse your power? That would be rather boring, wouldn’t it, to have a non-corrupt government that simply did its best to clear away the bullshit in peoples’ lives and let them get on with living? That glowed bright against corruption and stood for justice and democracy? So, yes, obviously it is impeachable. And no, it wouldn’t be boring in the least. It would be a welcome fucking change.

There are those who are afraid the Democrats are moving too fast on impeachment. We’ll see. There are those who worry it will help Trump electorally. Could be, but if we’re going to keep going on with having a country, we have to actually adhere to the law. If the nation decides it yearns for corruption and poison air and all those flavors of hell that so many fought, toiled, and died to stop and avoid, then that’s what it decides. A large number of us will never agree to such regression.

But we’re a country that supposedly cherishes justice, and that means we have to have trust in our executive. We do not have that trust. He has lied at every turn, burned every bridge, and he will be held to account under the law.

So, go ahead and play count-the-votes on your abacus, while the Democrats under Speaker Pelosi try to keep the Republic. They aren’t to impeachment yet. The probability they get there is much higher today than it was a week ago. The new conduct is more damning than anything we’ve seen before.


The charges, as they stand:

  1. President Trump’s administration withheld fund appropriated by Congress from Ukraine to leverage that government to aid Trump’s reelection by gathering or fabricating evidence on a political rival. (He may have also been dangling a White House meeting to further entice President Zelensky.)
  2. President Trump’s personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, repeatedly sought that same goal.
  3. President Trump conducted a telephonic conversation with Ukrainian President Zelensky that had as a precondition the discussion of working on gathering that political fodder.
  4. President Trump’s administration fraudulently employed the classification system to cover up the call.
  5. President Trump’s administration violated the law by not forwarding the whistleblower complaint and by actively and willfully minimizing it in the face of stark evidence.
  6. President Trump’s administration did not employ proper recusal procedures in evaluating criminal complaints that were forwarded to the Department of Justice.

And that’s just for starters. We do not know the extent of the involvement of some figures, including Secretary of State Pompeo and Attorney General William Barr. We do not know the exact nature of Giuliani’s work—who paid for it, and whether any of it was officially sanctioned by the State Department. We also know that Vice President Pence was blocked from attending Zelensky’s inauguration, and the president has insinuated that Pence’s own conversations with Ukrainian officials may be incriminating, but we do not know any details yet.

To be perfectly clear: the ask for targeted prosecution itself, without any promise of payment, is impeachable. But: due to the relationship between the United States and Ukraine, it is impossible to make any such request without it being a de facto quid pro quo—the United States is obviously in a powerful position compared to Ukraine, and Ukraine is reliant on the United States to help protect it. All the more reason that the USA has a duty to such foreign governments and their people to be an honest broker and not add to the woes of corruption and stressors that they have to deal with. The very fact that President Donald John Trump would attempt to take advantage of that country is dirty and corrupt.


The 2020 election takes place in 57 weeks. Keep following the candidates, as we all have a duty to try to pick the best of the lot.

Do: There is a Bomb

Do: There is a bomb. We should defuse it.

Re: There is no bomb.

Do: It’s right here. I’m touching it. I can feel the ticking with my fingers.

Re: There is no bomb.

Do: If we defuse it, we won’t get blown up.

Re: There is no bomb.

Do: The paper beside it says, “This is a bomb.” Oh! And here’s a defuse kit.

Re: It’s not a bomb.

Do: What is it, then?

Re: It’s not a bomb, whatever it is. And it’s too far away to do any harm.

Do: It’s right here. You could touch it if you tried.

Re: I could not touch it. See?

Re reaches eir hand toward the bomb while taking a step backward.

Do: You stepped backward!

Re: I did not. If anything, it moved away from me.

Do: The bomb’s timer says three minutes. We should defuse it.

Re: It’s not a bomb.

Do: You’ll be sorry when you’re bleeding to death from shrapnel wounds.

Re: I most certainly will not. I will heal and the scars will make me stronger.

Do: I thought you said it’s not a bomb?

Re: It’s not a bomb.

Do: Of course it is. All these wires and the explosives! If that’s not a bomb, what is it?

Re: I’m not qualified to talk about it.

Do: Let’s ask them. Do points to a bomb expert hotline number on the bomb defuse kit’s case. E pulls out eir phone and calls.

Mi: Bomb expert hotline. This is Mi. How can Mi help you?

Do: We think we have a bomb here.

Mi: Describe it for Mi, please.

Do: It’s a big mess of wires with a clock and what looks like paper-covered blocks that say C4 on them.

Mi: Does sound like a bomb to Mi. Anything else?

Do: There’s a piece of paper that says it’s a bomb.

Mi: Yes, Mi thinks it’s a bomb. You should defuse it.

Do hangs up.

Do: She says it’s probably a bomb and we should defuse it.

Re: There are many other experts that say it’s not a bomb.

Do: Please help me defuse it.

Re: Don’t! The bomb is good for us. We should speed the timer up.

Do: Speed the timer up—are you mad?! We’ll be killed, both of us.

Re: I have some bomb timer grease.

Do: Bomb timer grease?! I thought you said it wasn’t a—

Re squirts bomb timer grease into the bomb timer’s gears.

Do: Good God! We only have a minute left! Quick, you have to help me isolate the timer from the primary charge.

Re: Nope. We’ll be better off. Just you watch.

Do: Dead? You’re crazy. I’ll defuse it myself.

Do starts tracing the wires with eir hands, but Re slaps eir hand away.

Do: Quit! This is serious!

Re: I didn’t do anything.

The bomb explodes.


The bomb is a metaphor, principally for climate change.

It’s three short weeks until we get to vote in the 2018 midterms.

The planet needs your help in defusing the bomb.

The Midterms, 2014

Federal Hall, the original meetingplace of the US Congress.
Engraving of Federal Hall By Robert Hinshelwood, 1855

You may have heard, the United States Senate will be in Republican hands until at least 2016. You may have heard, it was a bloodbath, a slaughter. One of the two is true, the other is silly.

In 1972 or 1980 the presidential elections could arguably be called slaughters. Republican presidents elected by huge margins (Nixon by about 23 points and Reagan by about ten). But in the 2014 midterms, although the Republicans picked up a number of seats, the spreads were not at levels to be called pummelings.

The media, for their part, don’t care. If a boyscout helps an old lady cross the street, the media would call it a mugging for the ratings. The media is a waste of our time. The result, predicted in advance, was acted as a surprise by the media. There were a few surprises, but all within the margins of prediction.

And now the media trots out their analyses of “what went wrong” or “what went right.” Tries to distill some lasting wisdom from what amounts to business as usual.

In the nine closest races for the United States Senate, the average margin was 4 to 4.5 points. With a turnout likely in the mid-30s, that means if we ever get people to actually vote the results could be wildly different. But it also means that among the close races, where the balance of seats actually changed hands, there was no overwhelming preference.

In other words, the media interprets local elections as though voters have national intentions. They try to pack into the voting public ideas of intention that do not fit there. They harm voter motivation by making it seem like the people who voted against the winners of various races might as well have gone out and flown kites all day.

But that’s not how our country functions. A close race means no mandate. It means that while the balance of power might have swung in the smaller body, all the people continue to be represented. Republicans and Democrats with slim margins, should represent their constituents. Those with big margins should, too. But the media won’t say that.

Even in no-contest states, where the margin might be 20 or even 30 points, where the mandate is clear, there are still a lot of people that voted against the winner. And they should still be represented. The media conflates popular choice of representation with a parlor game where the winner is endowed with only the power of her winnings and not responsibility to use them wisely.

Not so. The duty is to govern, the oath is to do so. The media needs to get its head on straight. They have a bizarre split narrative chalking up the ballot initiatives to being a consolation prize, while painting the elections as a drastic repudiation. People just want a functional government, and the ballot initiatives that passed in most states make that clear.

Let’s just hope the Republicans are smarter than the media. If they are, they may actually prove themselves worthy of their victories.

What should they do? Tax reform. Clear the code out, fund the IRS properly and modernize it. Why they won’t: most of their biggest donors reap huge rewards from the arcane code and broken bureaucracy of the IRS. They want reform (to them meaning tax cuts), but it’s unlikely they want real reform enough to forgo a rate cut to get it.

Financial regulations. Protect the economy from the offenses that caused the recession. Why they won’t: the Democrats barely tried, the Republicans won’t even make an attempt. If they did, they wouldn’t know where to start.

Immigration reform. Build some good-will with hispanics while making for a more robust worker visa program that strengthens the economy. Why they won’t: their base might vote for them less enthusiastically.

Health care reform. The ACA could use some improvements, not abolishment. Why they won’t: they aren’t interested in issues that affect the average citizen, and their base hates the ACA for no good reason.

Climate change. They could introduce some modest legislation that would not be what’s needed but would be a first step. Why they won’t: their party’s position is that it doesn’t exist.

Bolster women. They could strengthen laws protecting women against violence and improving wage-parity. Why they won’t: their base is the employer class, and stronger women means stronger workers, which is seen as dangerous to employers.

Bolster education. Reduce the cost of college, improve the quality of primary schools. Why they won’t: modern businesses think education grows on trees, they don’t train their workforce like they used to, and they certainly don’t want to pay to educate competitors’ workers through public education.

What, oh what, will the Republicans do? This is their chance to step away from the ledge. To actually accomplish something. Even something modest would be a welcome change. The next two years will either be their comeback or their epitaph. Ball is in their court.