Steamrolling Trump treads all over America
Nick Anderson is a Pulitzer Prize-winning editorial cartoonist.
Opinion
These four men could drive Trump out of office — and their silence is deafening
The staggering cowardliness by four ex-presidents vis-à-vis Tyrant Trump’s wrecking of America cannot escape history’s verdict. However, there is still an opportunity for vigorous redemption by George W. Bush — whose life-saving AIDS Medicine Program in Africa was shut down by President Donald Trump — Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, and Joe Biden, if they have any self-respect for their patriotic duty.
As of now, these former presidents are living lives of luxury and personal pursuits. They are at the apex of the “contented classes” who have chosen to be bystanders to Trump’s tax cuts for the wealthy, deregulation, and the doling out of Trump’s corporatist welfare giveaways.
Imagine, if you will, what would happen if these four wealthy politicians, who still have most of their voters liking them, decided to band together and take on Trump full throttle. Privately, they believe and want Trump to be impeached (for the third time in the House) and convicted in the Senate (after two acquittals). This time, on many impeachable actions that Trump himself boasts about, claiming, “With Article II, I can do whatever I want as President.”
Right off, they can upend the public discourse that Trump dominates daily with phony personal accusations, stunningly un-rebutted by the feeble Democratic Party leaders. This counterattack with vivid, accurate words will further increase the majority of people who want Trump “fired.” Just from their own observations of Trump’s vicious, cruel destruction of large parts of our government and civil service, which benefits and protects the populace, should jolt the former presidents into action.
Next, the bipartisan Band of Four can raise tens of millions of dollars instantly to form “Save Our Republic” advocacy groups in every congressional district. The heat on both parties in Congress would immediately rise to make them start the Impeachment Drive. Congressional Republicans’ fear of losing big in the 2026 elections, as their polls are plummeting, will motivate some to support impeachment. Congressional Republicans abandoned President Richard Nixon in 1974, forcing his resignation with Impeachment on his political horizon.
Events can move very fast. First, Trump is the most powerful contributor to his own Impeachment. Day after day, this illegal closer of long-established social safety nets and services is alienating tens of millions of frightened and angry Americans.
Daily, Trump is breaking his many campaign promises. His exaggerated predictions are wrong. Remember his frequent promise to stop “these endless wars;” his assurance that he would not impair government health insurance programs (tell that to the millions soon to lose, due to Trump, their Medicaid coverage); his promise of lifting people into prosperity — he opposes any increase in the federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour and he has signed GOP legislation to strip tens of millions of Americans from the SNAP food support and take away the Obama subsidies for Obamacare.
Many Trump voters are among the vast number of people experiencing his treachery, where they live and raise their families, will lose out here. The catalytic opportunities of these four ex-presidents and their skilled operating teams are endless.
Further, this Band of Presidents, discovering their patriotic duty, will recharge the Democratic Party leaders or lead to the immediate replacement of those who simply do not want or know how to throw back the English language against this Bully-in-Chief, this abuser of women, this stunning racist, this chronic liar about serious matters, this inciter of violence including violence against members of Congress, this invader of cities with increasingly violent, law breaking storm-troopers turning a former Border Patrol force into a vast recruitment program for police state operators.
Trump uses the word “impeachment” frequently against judges who rule against him, and even mentions it in relation to it being applied to him. Tragically, Democratic Party leaders Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries have made talk of Impeachment a taboo, arguing the time is not yet ripe. How many more abuses of power do they need to galvanize the Democrats in the House and Senate against the most blatantly impeachable president by far in American history? He keeps adding to his list — recently, he has become a pirate and killer on the high seas, an unconstitutional war maker on Iran and Venezuela, openly threatening to illegally seize the Panama Canal, Greenland, and overthrow the Cuban government.
Constitutional scholar Obama can ask dozens of constitutional law professors the question: “Would any of the 56 delegates who signed our US Declaration of Independence in 1776 and the 39 drafters who signed our US Constitution in 1787, being told about Monarch King Donald Trump, oppose his immediate impeachment and removal — the only tool left he doesn’t control?”
Not one, would be their studied response.
Trump, a serial draft dodger, pushes through another $150 billion to the Pentagon above what the generals requested while starving well-being programs of nutrition for our children and elderly, and cutting services, by staff reductions, for American veterans, and strip-mining our preparedness for climate violence and likely pandemics.
He promised law and order during the election and then betrayed it right after his inauguration, pardoning 1,500 convicted, imprisoned criminals, 600 of them violent, emptying their prison cells and calling them “patriots” for what they did to Congress on Jan. 6, 2021.
MR. EX-PRESIDENTS, JUST WHAT ARE YOU WAITING FOR? WHAT ARE YOUR ESCAPIST EXCUSES?
Call your friends who are ranking members of the GOP-controlled Committees of Congress and tell them to hold prompt SHADOW HEARINGS to educate the public through witnesses about the TRUMP DUMP, impeachable, illegal, and unconstitutional government. The media would welcome the opportunity to cover such hearings. Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) thought this was “a good idea” before being admonished by his frightened Democratic leaders to bide his time and remain silent.
As more of Trump’s iron boots drop on people’s livelihoods, their freedoms, their worry for their children and grandchildren, their antipathy to more aggressive wars against non-threatening countries, and their demands at town meetings and mass marches for action against Trump’s self-enriching despotism, the disgraceful, craven cowardliness of our former presidential leaders will intensify. Unless they wake up to the challenge. With the mainstream media attacked regularly and being sued by Trump’s coercive, illegal extortion, the action by the Band of Four will bolster press freedom, press coverage, and their own redemption.
Send these four politicians, who are friendly with one another, petitions, letters, emails, satiric cartoons, or whatever communications that might redeem them from the further condemnation of history.
Rest assured, with Trump in the disgraced White House, THINGS ARE ONLY GOING TO GET WORSE, MUCH WORSE! For that is the predictable behavior from the past year and from his dangerously unstable, arrogant, vengeful, and egomaniacal personality.
- Ralph Nader is a consumer advocate and the author of "The Seventeen Solutions: Bold Ideas for Our American Future" (2012). His latest book is, "Wrecking America: How Trump's Lies and Lawbreaking Betray All" (2020, co-authored with Mark Green).
Keep reading...
Show less
Trump spelled out his dire threat with these 8 maniacal ideas
At the same time agents from Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Patrol are swarming into Minnesota and other states and cities, Trump is planning bombing raids on other countries.
Domestically and internationally, he is putting America on a war footing.
ICE is reportedly investing $100 million on what it calls “wartime recruitment” of 10,000 new agents, in addition to the 20,000 already employed. Its recruitment is targeting gun and military enthusiasts, people who listen to right-wing radio, who have gone to Ultimate Fighting Championship fights or shopped for guns and tactical gear, live near military bases, and attend NASCAR races. It’s calling for recruits willing to perform their “sacred duty” and “defend the homeland” by repelling “foreign invaders.”
Meanwhile, Trump has announced that he’ll ask Congress for a $1.5 trillion defense budget for the next fiscal year — a 66 percent increase over the 2026 defense budget Congress just authorized.
There’s coming to be no difference between Trump’s foreign and domestic policies.
Both are based on the same eight maniacal ideas:
- Might makes right.
- Law is irrelevant.
- America is at war with the world’s “radical left,” who are defined chiefly by their opposition to Trump.
- Fear and force are better weapons in this war than hope and compromise.
- The U.S. stock market is the best measure of Trump’s success.
- Personal enrichment by Trump and other officials is justified in pursuit of victory.
- So are lies, cover-ups, and the illegal use of force.
- Trump is invincible and omnipotent.
These ideas are at such fundamental odds with the norms most of us share about what America is all about and how a president should think and behave that it’s difficult to accept that Trump believes them or that his White House thugs eagerly endorse them. But he does, and they do.
Rather than some “doctrine” or set of principles, they’re more like guttural discharges. Trump is not rational, and the people around him trying to give him a patina of rationality — his White House assistants and spokespeople — surely know it.
The media tries to confer on Trump a coherence that evaporates almost as soon as it’s stated. The New York Times’s breathless coverage of its recent Oval Office interview with Trump — describing his “many faces” — is a model of such a vapidity.
According to the Times, Trump “took unpredictable turns” during the interview. But instead of seeing this unpredictability as a symptom of Trump’s diminishing capacities and ever-shorter attention span, the Times reported it as “a tactic he embraces as president, particularly on the world stage. If no one knows what you might do, they often do what you want them to do.”
Attempts to show inconsistencies or hypocrisies in Trump’s domestic or foreign policies are fruitless because they have no consistency or truthfulness to begin with.
Nor is it possible for the media to describe a “big picture” of America and the world under Trump because there is nothing to picture other than his malignant, impulsive, unbridled grandiosity all the way up and all the way down.
Trump has unleashed violence on America’s streets for much the same reason he has unleashed violence on Latin America and is planning to unleash it elsewhere: to display his own strength. His motive is to gain more power and, along the way, more wealth. (On Sunday, he even posted an image referring to himself as the “Acting President of Venezuela.”)
“Policy” implies thought. But under Trump, there is no domestic or foreign policy because it is all thoughtless. It is not even improvised. It is just Trump’s ego — as interpreted by the toadies around him (Miller, Vought, Vance, Kennedy, Rubio, Noem) trying to guess what his ego craves or detests, or fulfilling their own fanatical goals by manipulating it.
We must stop trying to make rational sense out of what Trump is doing. He is a ruthless dictator, plan and simple.
All analyses of what is happening — all reporting, all efforts to understand, all attempts at strategizing — are doomed. The only reality is that an increasingly dangerous and irrational sociopath is now exercising brutal and unconstrained power over America and, hence, the world.
Trump is putting America on a war footing because war is good for him as it is for all dictators. War confers emergency powers. It justifies ignoring the niceties of elections. It allows dictators to imprison and intimidate opponents and enemies. It enables them to create their own personal slush funds. It distracts the public from other things (remember Jeffrey Epstein?).
War gives dictators like Trump more power and more wealth. Period.
- Robert Reich is a emeritus professor of public policy at Berkeley and former secretary of labor. His writings can be found at https://robertreich.substack.com/.
- Robert Reich's new memoir, Coming Up Short, can be found wherever you buy books. You can also support local bookstores nationally by ordering the book at bookshop.org
Keep reading...
Show less
Of course Trump has no Venezuela plan — look what made him attack it
Why did Donald Trump invade Venezuela? His id made him.
Look at me, love me — every reason for doing anything is downstream from there.
I was telling you the other day that it’s not really clear why the president ordered the illegal and unconstitutional invasion of Venezuela and the kidnapping of its head of state. Regime officials provided reasons but were often contravened by Trump.
“Aren't We Tired of Trying to Interpret Trump's Foreign Policy Gibberish?” asked Marty Longman in the headline of a piece published after news of the attack. Indeed, we are, and I hasten to add that endless attempts to figure it all out are a form of oppression.
It isn’t normal.
Even if you disagreed with the 2003 invasion of Iraq, you understood the argument for it. George W Bush said Saddam Hussain had weapons of mass destruction. That was a lie, but at least the thinking above and below it was coherent.
In contrast, senior officials in the Trump regime are all over the place about why the US had to violate Venezuela’s sovereignty, giving the impression that no one above the level of military operations actually knows what they’re doing or why they’re doing it.
Meanwhile, critics can’t form a precise counterargument since the original “argument” is, well, no one really knows what it is. So, for the most part, liberals have decided to brush aside the confusion and incoherence to pinpoint two reasons that makes sense to them: Vladimir Putin and oil.
Don’t get me wrong. If you believe Trump is a tool of a Russian dictator, I’m with you. If you think Trump is a criminal president who is willing to use the awesome power of the United States military to commit international crimes, I’m with you.
But I also think these arguments tend to share a flaw.
They make more sense than Trump has ever made.
I’m reminded of that time Susie Wiles seemed to trash other people in the Trump regime. The White House chief of staff called Russ Vought “a rightwing absolute zealot,” for instance.
To savvy observers, she seemed to be looking for a scapegoat for her boss’s troubles. But in this White House, what you see is often what you get — if it looks like chaos, it probably is.
As I said at the time:
“There are no anchoring principles, no moral guideposts, no concept of national interest, no sense of the common good. It’s just mindless impulse and rationalizations after the fact.”
Set aside Putin and oil to consider something Trump values above everything else: “ratings.” He believes the more people watch him, the more they love him. What better way to get everyone’s attention than to be seen as a war president on TV?
Not just any war, though.
In a recent interview with me, the Secretary of Defense Rock (a pen name) said Trump “dislikes large, open-ended occupations that produce visible casualties and political backlash.”
(That’s almost certainly a result of watching coverage of the Iraq War in which images of death and destruction were common.)
Instead, he likes “coercive actions below the threshold of war — air strikes, sanctions, seizures, energy pressure, and threats that generate profit and leverage without requiring public buy-in.”
In other words, he likes one-and-done military ops. Venezuela was one of those. So was the bunker bombing of Iran last June. Though they look good on TV, they looked even better with Donald “War President” Trump at the center of it all.
That’s Trump’s id: look at me, love me.
Every reason for doing anything is downstream from there.
What does it all mean? That’s what everyone is asking, but the question itself is more dignified than the thing it’s questioning.
Trump got his made-for-TV war. He got everyone buzzing about what he’s going to do next about Greenland, Mexico, Canada, wherever.
Meanwhile, back in Venezuela, it looks like life is going to go on pretty much as it had been, the difference being that the new leader is even more tyrannical than the last one.
“The idea that she can't rig another election or the opposition will magically take over seems pretty far-fetched, especially because we don't have troops on the ground,” the Secretary of Defense Rock said.
The Secretary of Defense Rock doesn’t use his real name, because Trump is president. He’s the publisher of History Does Us, a newsletter about the intersection of military and civilian life. The last time we spoke, we discussed how the commander-in-chief undermines military discipline.
“The idea that we will launch more air strikes or raids or blockades if she doesn't play ball seems kind of dumb, given where the polling is,” he told me. “At this point, I kinda assume the status quo will hold, and that this entire episode will ultimately amount to little more than content-production and performative-posting.”
Here’s our conversation.
JS: The US now opposes democracies in Europe. We have invaded Venezuela. We are war-drumming about Greenland. Is Vladimir Putin's investment in Donald Trump finally bearing fruit?
SDR: I’d be careful with the phrase “investment bearing fruit,” because it implies command-and-control that we don’t have evidence for. What is clear is something more structural and, frankly, more troubling: Vladimir Putin doesn’t need to control Donald Trump to benefit from him. He benefits from Trump’s own instincts.
Putin’s core objective isn’t territorial conquest in the Cold War sense. It’s the erosion of Western cohesion, legitimacy and confidence. On that score, Trump has been extraordinarily useful without being directed. Attacking allies, casting doubt on democratic norms, treating sovereignty as transactional, and framing international politics as raw deal-making all weaken the post-1945 order that constrains Russia.
On Venezuela specifically, what you’re seeing isn’t a coherent imperial project so much as improvisational, performative power politics — noise that signals disregard for norms rather than a plan to replace them. That norm-breaking itself is the point. It tells allies that rules are optional and tells adversaries that the West no longer believes in its own system.
So no, this isn’t about Putin cashing in some secret investment. It’s about a global environment where authoritarian leaders benefit when the United States abandons restraint, consistency, and democratic solidarity—and Trump does that instinctively. The fruit isn’t conquest. It’s corrosion.
Most of the Democrats in the Congress seem to be pushing back against Trump's imperial overtures. Is that your perspective? If not, what do you think they should do?
There is meaningful pushback from a lot of Democrats (no matter what Democrats are complaining about on background on Axios), more quickly and more openly than during Trump’s first term.
You’re seeing sharper rhetoric and a greater willingness to use oversight, but they don't control any branch of government, so there isn't much they can do.
But with such tight margins, particularly in the House, I don't think it's crazy to shut down the government again (I believe funding expires at the end of the month?), or hold up an NDAA (National Defense Authorization Act). You have senior administration officials openly stating they want Greenland and would use military force, which is so insane that you might as well take extreme measures.
Sad to say, Stephen Miller might be right. 'Nobody is gonna fight the US militarily over the future of Greenland,' he said. If so, NATO could be a paper tiger. Is that what could happen?
I still can't believe this is a thing. Miller is probably right on the narrow, grim point that Denmark isn’t going to “fight the US military” in a conventional war over Greenland. But the leap from that to “NATO becomes a paper tiger” is not automatic — because NATO’s credibility isn’t just “can Denmark win a shooting war with the US.”
It’s whether the alliance remains a political commitment to mutual sovereignty. A US move to seize Greenland would be less a “test of NATO’s tanks” than a self-inflicted alliance-killer that destroys Atlanticism probably forever.
But it is a move that is so outrageous that I think there would be more alarm among congressional GOP's and the military.
Fighting foreign wars is as popular as Jeffrey Epstein's child-sex trafficking ring. Yet Trump continually takes the side of elite interests, in this case, oil companies. What is going on?
I think this is basically Marco Rubio.
I thought he would have very little influence because he came from the internationalist wing of the GOP, but being both secretary of state and national security advisor (and archivist if you care about that) clearly gives Rubio a lot of influence, and Venezuela has been a pet project of his for a while. Add support from Stephen Miller and this was probably an inevitability.
I'm not even sure a lot of the oil companies want anything to do with Venezuela, because of the security concerns, age of infrastructure, and the capital investment that would be required to get any meaningful profit. I also thought the US was supposed to be energy independent?
In addition, Trump’s “anti-war” image is real only in a very narrow sense. He dislikes large, open-ended occupations that produce visible casualties and political backlash. What he’s perfectly comfortable with are coercive actions below the threshold of war — air strikes, sanctions, seizures, energy pressure, and threats that generate profit and leverage without requiring public buy-in.
If a helo goes down, we're having a very different conversation.
There is no followup plan for Venezuela, is there? Trump is just winging it. He has no idea what he's doing. Every choice is made with how it looks on TV in his mind. Am I wrong?
Ya, this is why I never understood all the editorializing about how things have really changed and this is a really great success.
The structures and principals of the Venezuelan government that were set up by Maduro are still intact. From everything I have read, Delcy Rodriguez is a more ruthless political operator than Maduro was, so the idea that she can't rig another election or the opposition will magically take over seems pretty far-fetched, especially because we don't have troops on the ground.
The idea that we will launch more air strikes or raids or blockades if she doesn't play ball seems kind of dumb, given where the polling is. At this point, I kinda assume the status quo will hold, and that this entire episode will ultimately amount to little more than content-production and performative-posting.
Keep reading...
Show less
This chilling Trump confession means he must be impeached
Democrats should be loudly calling for the impeachment of Donald Trump now, run on it in November, and then, when they take the House, actually do it.
Because what he’s is doing right now is not “norm-breaking,” or “provocative rhetoric,” or even the oft-quoted “Trump being Trump.” It’s an open assertion of unchecked power, limited — in his own words — only by his own “personal morality.”
His shocking interview in the New York Times was decisive. That isn’t how a president speaks in a constitutional republic. Instead, it’s a classic example of how a strongman, a wannabe Mussolini or Putin, speaks as he tries to reinvent the nation so the law becomes optional when it comes to him, his flunkies, and his billionaire buddies.
When asked if there were any limits on his power, he told the Times’ reporters, “Yeah, there is one thing. My own morality. My own mind. It’s the only thing that can stop me.” He added, “I don’t need international law.”
And he’s acting it out in real time, creating his own private, unaccountable, masked army (or death squad) that’s actively terrorizing American citizens and being used to punish the cities and states of any politicians who dare stand up to him or call him out.
Not to mention his petty revenges: last week, he cut off billions in childcare and other low-income funding to California, Colorado, Illinois, Minnesota and New York in direct violation of the law and the Constitution because those states’ leaders had the temerity to defy him.
The Founders saw this coming. They obsessed over it, and relentlessly warned us future generations about it. And they built a solution for it into the Constitution they drafted in the summer and fall of 1787: impeachment.
James Madison, in Federalist 47, cautioned that the greatest danger to liberty wouldn’t come from a foreign invasion, but, instead, from a president who turned the powers of government into instruments of personal will:
“The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.”
Alexander Hamilton, no radical by any stretch, wrote that impeachable offenses are those which “proceed from the misconduct of public men” and injure society itself. He hoped, in Federalist 68, that no man with “[t]alents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity” would ever reach the White House, but that’s exactly what we’re now watching in real time.
And, no, impeachment is not some “unprecedented Democratic overreach.” Republicans have demanded impeachment of Democratic presidents for nearly a century, and tried multiple times, most recently just two years ago.
- Republican legislators screamed about impeaching Franklin D. Roosevelt over his threat to pack the Supreme Court if they didn’t stop knocking down his New Deal programs.
- They floated impeachment of Harry Truman for going into Korea without a formal declaration of war.
- They threatened both John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson with impeachment over the Bay of Pigs in Cuba and the War in Vietnam.
- They introduced impeachment resolutions against Jimmy Carter over the Panama Canal treaty.
- They campaigned openly to impeach Barack Obama over his “dictatorial” executive orders and the “communist” Affordable Care Act.
The idea that impeachment is too “divisive” to even discuss now is a naked lie, and a very convenient one for authoritarian Republicans. What’s different today isn’t the tool of impeachment; it’s the target.
Trump has now made explicit what Richard Nixon tried to pull off but failed: that his presidency exists above the law and he can freely ignore both domestic and international law. Nixon at least had the decency to mutter it privately, once even telling David Frost that, “Well, when the president does it, that means that it is not illegal.” Trump has put it into public policy.
When a president claims the law doesn’t restrain him, as Trump has done — when he treats Congress’ approval as if it were optional, federal judges as if they were political enemies, treaties as inconveniences that can be gotten around or even ignored, and war powers as personal prerogatives — impeachment stops being political theater and becomes a constitutional necessity.
While I vehemently disagree with Trump’s tax cuts for billionaires, gutting USAID and other agencies, and inflammatory rhetoric (among dozens of other things), this is not about policy disagreements.
It’s explicitly about his unilaterally making war without congressional authorization, weaponizing the Justice Department against his political enemies, dangling pardons and financial opportunities for his allies but the law as vengeance for his critics, and the obscenity of his mass pardons for the criminals who attacked our Capitol on January 6th.
It’s about, in other words, a president who’s told us all, bluntly, that legality and government power — including the power to execute a woman who was just driving home after dropping off her child at school — flows from his own definition of “morality,” his “own mind,” and no other source, the American Constitution be damned.
He’s asserting the “morality” of a man convicted of fraud, adjudicated a rapist, repeatedly accused of sexual assault, who gleefully takes bribes of gold, Trump hotels, and jet planes and rewards the bribers with tariff reductions, American weapons, and other benefits.
This is how Vladimir Putin and Viktor Orbán transformed Russia and Hungary from democracies into strongman single-party autocracies, and Trump is eagerly following their examples (and apparently taking their regular advice).
Here’s an example of what articles of impeachment could read like, a version that could be read into the Congressional Record tomorrow:
Articles of Impeachment Against Donald J. Trump, President of the United States
Article I — Abuse of Power and Usurpation of Congressional War Authority
In his conduct as President of the United States, Donald J. Trump has abused the powers of his office by initiating and directing acts of war without authorization from Congress, in violation of Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution and the War Powers Resolution of 1973.
President Trump ordered and executed military actions against the sovereign nation of Venezuela, including strikes within its capital and the seizure of its head of state, without a declaration of war or statutory authorization from Congress. In doing so, he substituted his personal judgment and the desires of his donors in the fossil fuel industry for the constitutional role of the legislative branch, nullifying Congress’s exclusive authority to decide when the nation enters hostilities.
Such conduct is not a policy disagreement but a direct assault on the separation of powers. The Framers vested the war-making power in Congress precisely to prevent unilateral, impulsive, or self-interested uses of military force by a single individual.
Wherefore, President Trump has acted in a manner grossly incompatible with self-government and has committed an abuse of power warranting impeachment and removal from office.
Article II — Contempt for the Rule of Law and Constitutional Limits on Executive Power
Donald J. Trump has asserted that his authority as President is constrained only by his “own morality,” explicitly rejecting the binding force of domestic law, treaty obligations, and international legal norms ratified by the United States.
By publicly declaring that neither Congress, the courts, nor the law meaningfully constrain his actions, President Trump has advanced a theory of executive power fundamentally incompatible with the Constitution. Treaties ratified by the Senate are, under Article VI, the supreme Law of the Land.
A President who claims legality flows from personal judgment rather than law announces an intent to govern as a sovereign, not as a constitutional officer.
This conduct constitutes a profound breach of the President’s oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution.
Article III — Corrupt Use of the Justice System for Political Retaliation
Donald J. Trump has abused the powers of the presidency by directing or encouraging the use of federal law enforcement and prosecutorial authority to target political opponents for retaliation and intimidation.
The President has publicly demanded investigations and prosecutions of political adversaries while signaling protection for allies. Such conduct weaponizes the justice system and undermines equal justice under law.
This pattern of conduct constitutes an abuse of power and a violation of the public trust.
Article IV — Subversion of Democratic Institutions and Checks and Balances
Donald J. Trump has engaged in a sustained campaign to undermine the independence of the judiciary, the authority of Congress, and the legitimacy of constitutional constraints on executive power.
By encouraging attacks on judges, disregarding statutory limits imposed by Congress, and treating oversight as illegitimate, the President has sought to weaken the institutions designed to restrain executive excess.
Such conduct represents a betrayal of constitutional responsibility.
Article V — Abuse of the Pardon Power to Undermine Accountability for an Attack on the Constitution
Donald J. Trump has abused the pardon power by issuing broad clemency to individuals who participated in or supported the January 6, 2001 attack on the United States Capitol.
While the pardon power is substantial, it was never intended to erase accountability for a violent assault on Congress itself. This use of the pardon power undermines deterrence, encourages future political violence, and weakens constitutional governance.
Conclusion
In all of this, Donald J. Trump has demonstrated that he will place personal authority above constitutional duty, power above law, and loyalty to himself above loyalty to the Republic.
Wherefore, Donald J. Trump warrants impeachment, trial, removal from office, and disqualification from holding any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States.
Then comes the part Democrats keep flinching from: begin a loud and public campaign for impeachment. After all, just this week he told Republicans that his biggest fear if the GOP loses control of the House is that he’ll be impeached for a third time.
On Thursday afternoon, I got one of Trump’s daily fundraising emails. This one didn’t ask if I’d yet made a donation to get my name on the list for my “tariff rebate check” like others this week and last but, instead, said (and the bold type is also bold in his email):
“Dems plan for 2026 is simple but disturbing to EVERY MAGA Republican:
1. Flip the House
2. Flip the Senate
3. IMPEACH PRESIDENT TRUMP
4. Kill the MAGA agenda permanently”
He’s not just talking about impeachment; he’s fundraising on it! Democrats, frankly, should do the same.
I realize that a conviction will never pass the current Senate (although we may be surprised if he keeps doing and saying truly crazy and offensive things), but it’s important to get this into the public dialogue and prepare the ground for next year.
That’s why Democrats must tell voters now exactly what they intend to do with power if they win it this coming November (or before, if the GOP loses any more House members).
And they need to stop pretending that through some weird magic our democracy can be preserved by silence, caution, or simply hoping that this convicted felon will suddenly discover restraint or cave to a judge’s demand.
There is a real possibility, by the way, that today a handful of Republicans in the House could decide that preserving Congress’ war powers, the power and independence of the judiciary, and the rule of law matters more than protecting one aging politician. After all, yesterday five Republicans in the Senate voted against Trump on his Venezuela oil-stealing campaign and nine in the House voted against him on healthcare. It happened with Nixon, and it can happen again.
But it won’t happen if Democrats continue to treat impeachment like a dirty word instead of a constitutional obligation.
Yes, it’ll piss off Trump’s base and rightwing media will go nuts. But his base is already filled with rage and rightwing media will do what they do no matter what, impeachment or not. Democrats need to stop cowering.
So let’s say what needs to be said without euphemism or apology:
Democrats should introduce articles of impeachment now, run on them this November, and then actually do it.
- Thom Hartmann is a New York Times best-selling author and America's #1 progressive talk show host. His Substack can be found here.
Keep reading...
Show less
Trump says he invaded Venezuela for them. They may not want what he's offering
On Friday, Donald Trump summoned his largest donors — U.S. oil execs — to the White House, and exhorted them to invest $100 billion in Venezuela’s oil industry. The unspoken through line was that Trump would look ridiculous if they didn’t.
The CEOs weren’t exactly enthusiastic. Venezuela is known as one of the most dangerous places to operate a business, and oil firms in particular have expressed concern about the safety of their operations and their workers.
When Trump asked ExxonMobil CEO Darren Woods how long it would take his company to restart operations there, Woods called Venezuela “uninvestable,” suggesting it wasn’t a matter of Trump just snapping his fingers.
First, “significant changes have to be made.” Woods told Trump bluntly, “There are a number of legal and commercial frameworks that would have to be established to even understand what kind of returns we would get on the investment.”
To a failed businessman selling himself as a savvy one, that assessment must have come as a shock.
Why Trump invaded
By now it is obvious to everyone that Trump didn’t topple Maduro to:
- Restore democracy after Maduro lost the 2024 election but refused to leave.
- Support Maria Machado after Maduro “banned” her candidacy but her coalition won by 37 points anyway.
- Protect Venezuelans living under a regime that disappears people.
- Better the lives of suffering Venezuelans in any way.
Instead, as Trump and his henchmen have made patently clear, he deployed the U.S. military against a foreign nation to “take back” oil and oil extraction equipment he claims was “stolen” from private investors in 1975. That was the year Venezuela passed the Oil Industry Nationalization Law and first appropriated its oil industry. It was also the year Maduro turned 12.
Trump’s claim Venezuela “stole” land from the U.S. is absurd. The U.S. never owned land there. No companies were kicked out of the country. When the oil industry was nationalized, companies like Exxon, Mobil, and Chevron were compensated, just not at the levels they wanted. They chose, 50 years ago, to let it go.
A failed businessman
After violating international law, mocking in particular the UN Charter that has kept WWIII at bay for 80 years, Trump gave U.S. oil executives their marching orders: they must rebuild Venezuela's fossil fuel industry.
But after bankrupting six businesses, closing one failed business after another, and now killing small companies with illogical tariffs, Trump’s hyped business acumen is thin. As Friday’s meeting made embarrassingly clear, Trump has no clue what it will take to rebuild Venezuela’s rusted-out oil infrastructure. He has not thought through what legal, structural, and market impediments exist, how much those impediments would cost to remove, or how it could be done. He also has no idea how much all of this would cost, or how many years it would take to see a return.
The kicker, to any successful CEO, is that Trump didn’t do this homework before he deposed Venezuela’s president and announced he’d be “running” the country.
Not all oil is the same
Oil in Venezuela is “sour.” This means it is extra-heavy, thick, and higher in sulfur than “sweet oil.” Sulfur must be removed from crude oil during the refining process. The more sulfur, the more refining is needed.
In result, Venezuelan oil is more expensive to extract, process and transport. More intensive industrial techniques are required, mainly specialized equipment for desulfurization (like hydrotreating/hydrocracking). Stricter safety protocols are needed to remove harmful hydrogen sulfide, adding significant costs and complexity.
Pioneer Energy reports that sour crude “presents a threat to both infrastructure and human health, requiring specialized equipment for sour service, safety procedures, frequent maintenance, and PPE and specialized training for workers.”
Although Trump would likely waive away corporate liability for killing workers and poisoning surrounding communities, CEOs know there is no guarantee courts will go along with him.
All major investments depend on the rule of law
The Dallas Federal Reserve confirms that oil investors are worried about a lack of clarity about America’s own economic outlook under Trump. Legal and market instability, along with low oil prices, makes investing in and operating Venezuelan oil fields an even higher-risk endeavor.
A central concern for industry executives is whether Trump “can guarantee the safety of the employees and equipment that companies would need to send to Venezuela, how the companies would be paid, whether oil prices will rise enough to make Venezuelan crude profitable, and the status of Venezuela’s membership in the OPEC oil exporters cartel.”
The political risk is of paramount concern. As Carrie Filipetti, former deputy assistant secretary for Cuba and Venezuela told Politico, “It’s not just about getting rid of Maduro. It’s also about making sure that the legitimate opposition comes into power.”
History also matters. Chris Perez asks in his poignant substack, ‘How will Trump guarantee Big Oil that their investments will not be renationalized?’ How indeed. The only way to guarantee that is through prolonged U.S. operational and military presence, for which American taxpayers have little appetite.
Even without regime change, there’s climate change and pending legal liability. Big Oil has known since the 1950s that their product is killing the environment, but has lied about it for decades. Looking at pending legal dockets, that bill may soon become due. Then there’s legal uncertainty affecting safety, contractual relations, market regulations, import/export controls, OPEC, and economic controls, all of which would make or Venezuelan investments.
Given that the rule of law under Trump is already on life support, businesses are taking a wait and see approach, even here. Trump commanding his donors to rebuild Venezuela’s oil industry under these facts while he “runs” the country sounds like delusional gibberish.
- Sabrina Haake is a columnist and 25+ year federal trial attorney specializing in 1st and 14th A defense. Her Substack, The Haake Take, is free.
Keep reading...
Show less
Trump's favorite fantasy is about to hit us where it hurts yet again
President Donald Trump is now apparently planning to request a $600 billion increase in annual military spending starting in October, financed by another huge jump in import taxes, aka tariffs. I said “apparently” since it’s not clear that he thinks he has to request authority for this spending increase or massive tax hike from Congress.
Under the Constitution there is no ambiguity on these issues. Congress has the power to tax and authorize spending. However, Trump and the Republican Congress have not shown much respect for the Constitution in Trump’s second term and it’s not clear the Supreme Court has any greater level of respect. So, who knows if there actually will be requests for Congress to vote on, or whether he will just do it with no legal authority.
Anyhow, apart from the mechanism employed, this would be a massive increase in spending, coming to just under 2 percent of GDP. It would also amount to a massive tax increase if Trump actually offsets the spending, as he claimed he would, rather than just increasing the deficit.
Taken over a decade, a $600 billion increase in annual taxes would come to $6 trillion, roughly $45,000 per household. It is real money. It would be difficult, but not impossible, to raise this much money through tariffs.
Our imports currently come to just to over $3.2 trillion annually. A straight calculation would imply that an across-the-board tariff increase of 19 percentage points could cover the cost of Trump’s military buildup. But the increase in the tariff rate on most items would end up being considerably higher for two reasons.
First imports would fall sharply in response to a tariff of this size. Let’s say they fall by 15 percent, this would put imports at $2.7 trillion, which would mean a tariff increase of 22 percentage points would be needed to get to Trump’s $600 billion.
The other reason that the tariff on most items would likely be higher is that Trump will presumably exempt some items other for policy reasons or in response to payoffs at Mar-a-Lago. In the first category, much of what we import are intermediate goods used in manufacturing finished products like cars or planes. High tariffs on these inputs will hurt industries that Trump is ostensibly trying to foster.
The other part of the story is that we have seen many executives make the pilgrimage to Mar-a-Lago, most notably Apple CEO Tim Cook, and walk away tariff exemptions on items they import. This trek will be more widely traveled when CEOs are looking at tariffs two or three times their current levels.
That means the import tax on many products will have to increase in the neighborhood of 30 percentage points to hit Trump’s revenue targets. That will be a big hit to many households’ budgets, as we know that the bulk of tariff revenue gets passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices. That doesn’t sound like much of an affordability agenda, but Trump was never really into that word anyhow.
The other side of the story is that this massive increase in military spending will mean a huge diversion of resources from productive uses. Scientists who might have been developing better computers or software for civilian uses will instead be working for military contractors. The same is true for researchers developing new drugs or medical equipment.
This will also be the case with millions of less-highly educated or narrowly trained workers. Instead of working as teachers or in various areas of health care, such as physical therapists or home health care assistants, they will be employed in the sort of jobs needed by military contractors. That’s a huge drain for the economy and corresponds to the reduction in purchasing power as a result of Trump’s massive tax increase.
If there was some clear argument as to why we needed such a massive increase in taxes and diversion of resources, as when we confronted the Nazis in World War II, perhaps this hit to the economy could be justified. But no one made such claims, not even Trump in his 2024 campaign, until Trump invaded Venezuela and decided it was fun.
It’s good to see an old man suffering from dementia enjoying himself, but it would be much cheaper and less deadly if we just gave him a good video game.
- Dean Baker is the co-founder and the senior economist of the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR). He is the author of several books, including "Getting Back to Full Employment: A Better bargain for Working People," "The End of Loser Liberalism: Making Markets Progressive," "The United States Since 1980," "Social Security: The Phony Crisis" (with Mark Weisbrot), and "The Conservative Nanny State: How the Wealthy Use the Government to Stay Rich and Get Richer." He also has a blog, "Beat the Press," where he discusses the media's coverage of economic issues.
Keep reading...
Show less
Republicans in Congress betray their sacred oath every day. It's up to us to make them pay
There are many good reasons our government is based on three “separate but equal branches.” The men who wrote our Constitution 250 years ago had just fought a bloody war against an incredibly powerful monarch whose empire was based on extracting wealth in all its forms from merciless colonial exploitation of weaker nations.
Few expected the victory of those brave men and women that gave birth to a new nation. A nation of people free from the dictates of a monarch — and designed to preserve that freedom through carefully crafted “checks and balances” that would assure no one branch of government could trample the people or their Constitution underfoot.
Yet now those checks and balances have been abandoned in favor of so-called “loyalty” to one political party over the long-standing mandate to ensure the branches of government remain separate and diligent in their primary function to serve the people and govern true to the Constitution.
The excesses of one-party rule have long been known from the actual history of what has happened here in Montana — and now in the nation — when one party dominates all three branches of government. In short, the checks and balances on which this nation was founded disappear into the sordid hole of party politics.
When a president decides to become a Mad Emperor, it is the legislative branch — Congress — which is charged with countering actions that abuse and ignore the rule of domestic and international laws and make a mockery of Constitutional governance.
But when Congress is cowed into submission, that fealty to the Constitution, which all members swear to uphold in their Oath of Office, is sacrificed — not for the benefit the populace, but for the benefit of a political party and its brutal leader.
Stephen Miller, the president’s deputy chief of staff, plainly laid out his vision for how the world, and our nation, should work. Namely, by what he called the “iron law of power, control, and dominance.”
Of course you won’t find that “law” anywhere but in Miller’s fevered mind. And it’s a long ways from participatory democracy and the duty of Congress to check the extremes of the executive branch.
Unfortunately, Congress, and Montana’s entire congressional delegation, are complicit in that dereliction of duty and violation of their Oath of Office.
Given that three of Montana’s four members of Congress are veterans, it seems they have confused being in the military — where the “Commander in Chief” gives the orders and they obey — and being in Congress, which is specifically charged with serving the people, not whomever sits in the Oval Office.
That distinction is critical to the functioning of the nation which, by most measures, isn’t doing all that well right now as citizens struggle to feed, clothe and shelter themselves and our families.
Add to that the wide international condemnation being directed to the actions of an out-of-control president whose avarice now extends to openly confiscating the resources of sovereign nations, deposing their leaders through military force, and threatening traditional allies with similar actions in violation of international law.
There’s still time to bring honor to the positions Montana’s congressional delegation holds. But that requires acknowledging that Miller’s “iron law” doesn’t exist in law or the Constitution and has no place among the community of nations in the 21st Century.
Your sworn duty is not to the president and his toadies, it’s to “We the People” — and that call to duty could not be more pressing as our democracy now hangs by the thinnest of threads.
- George Ochenski is Montana's longest-running columnist and a longtime environmental activist, concerned with keeping Montana's natural beauty clean and safe. He writes from Helena and appears in the Daily Montanan weekly.
Keep reading...
Show less
ICE does things most police won't — and now we have deadly proof
By Ben Jones, Assistant Professor of Public Policy and Research Associate in the Rock Ethics Institute, Penn State.
Minneapolis is once again the focus of debates about violence involving law enforcement, after an Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer shot and killed Renee Nicole Good, a 37-year-old mother, in her car.
The incident quickly prompted dueling narratives. Trump administration officials defended the shooting as justified, while local officials condemned it.
The shooting will also likely prompt renewed scrutiny of training and policy of officers and the question of them shooting at moving vehicles. There has been a recent trend in law enforcement toward policies that prohibit such shootings. It is a policy shift that has shown promise in saving lives.
Decades ago, the New York City Police Department prohibited officers from shooting at moving vehicles. That led to a drop in police killings without putting officers in greater danger.
Debates over deadly force are often contentious, but as I note in my research on police ethics and policy, for the most part there is consensus on one point: Policing should reflect a commitment to valuing human life and prioritizing its protection. Many use-of-force policies adopted by police departments endorse that principle.
Yet, as in Minneapolis, controversial law enforcement killings continue to occur. Not all agencies have implemented prohibitions on shooting at vehicles. Even in agencies that have, some policies are weak or ambiguous.
In addition, explicit prohibitions on shooting at vehicles are largely absent from the law, which means that officers responsible for fatal shootings of drivers that appear to violate departmental policies still often escape criminal penalties.
In the case of ICE, which is part of the Department of Homeland Security, its policy on shooting at moving vehicles — unlike that of many police agencies — lacks a clear instruction for officers to get out of the way of moving vehicles where feasible. It’s an omission at odds with generally recognized best practices in policing.
ICE policy
ICE’s use-of-force policy prohibits its officers from “discharging firearms at the operator of a moving vehicle” unless it is necessary to stop a grave threat. The policy is explicit that deadly force should not be used “solely to prevent the escape of a fleeing suspect.”
That point is relevant for evaluating the fatal shooting in Minneapolis. Videos show one officer trying to open the door of the vehicle that Good was driving, while another officer appears to be in front of the vehicle as she tried to pull away.
Shooting to prevent the driver simply from getting away would have been in violation of agency policy and obviously inconsistent with prioritizing the protection of life.
ICE’s policy lacks clear instruction, however, for its officers to get out of the way of moving vehicles where feasible. In contrast, the Department of Justice’s use-of-force policy makes it explicit that officers should not shoot at a vehicle if they can protect themselves by “moving out of the path of the vehicle.”
Notably, President Joe Biden issued an executive order in 2022 requiring federal law enforcement agencies — like ICE — to adopt use-of-force policies “that are equivalent to, or exceed, the requirements” of the Department of Justice’s policy.
Despite that order, the provision to step out of the way of moving cars never made it into the use-of-force policy that applies to ICE.
Rationale for not shooting
Prioritizing the protection of life doesn’t rule out deadly force. Sometimes such force is necessary to protect lives from a grave threat, such as an active shooter. But it does rule out using deadly force when less harmful tactics can stop a threat. In such cases, deadly force is unnecessary — a key consideration in law and ethics that can render force unjustified.
That’s the concern involved with police shooting at moving vehicles. It often is not necessary because officers have a less harmful option to avoid a moving vehicle’s threat: stepping out of the way.
This guidance has the safety of both suspects and police in mind. Obviously, police not shooting lowers the risk of harm to the suspect. But it also lowers the risk to the officer in the vast majority of cases because of the laws of physics. If you shoot the driver of a car barreling toward you, that rarely brings a car to an immediate stop, and the vehicle often continues on its path.
Many police departments have incorporated these insights into their policies. A recent analysis of police department policies in the 100 largest U.S. cities found that close to three-quarters of them have prohibitions against shooting at moving vehicles.
Gap between policy and best practices
The shooting in Minneapolis serves as a stark reminder of the stubborn gap that often persists between law and policy on the one hand and best law enforcement practices for protecting life on the other. When steps are taken to close that gap, however, they can have a meaningful impact.
Some of the most compelling examples involve local, state and federal measures that reinforce one another. Consider the “fleeing felon rule,” which used to allow police to shoot a fleeing felony suspect to prevent their escape even when the suspect posed no danger to others.
That rule was at odds with the doctrine of prioritizing the protection of life, leading some departments to revise their use-of-force policies and some states to ban the rule. In 1985, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional for police to shoot a fleeing suspect who was not a danger.
Banning that questionable tactic notably led to a reduction in killings by police.
This history suggests that clear bans in law and policy on questionable tactics have the potential to save lives, while also strengthening the means for holding officers accountable.
Keep reading...
Show less
This man nailed Trump — then elite conspirators helped him wriggle free
Tuesday was the five-year anniversary of the J6 insurrection. On Jan. 6, 2021, the then-president organized and led an attempted paramilitary takeover of the US government.
And Donald Trump got away with it.
He ran for president for a second time like a man who was trying to outrun a jail sentence. That’s because he was.
Special counsel Jack Smith, who investigated the events of that treasonous day, told lawmakers last month he could prove Trump’s guilt.
“Our investigation developed proof beyond a reasonable doubt that President Trump engaged in a criminal scheme to overturn the results of the 2020 election and to prevent the lawful transfer of power,” Smith said.
Trump stalled and obstructed and dragged his feet, abusing every judicial courtesy afforded to powerful men and every procedural loophole, all while campaigning as if his life depended on it. He turned himself into the “hero” in a grandiose narrative about the battle between good and evil (QAnon), and when justice came knocking, he made it seem like evidence of the conspiracy against him — and America.
Once safely back in power, Trump stopped all the criminal investigations. With damning proof in hand, Smith was forced to stand down. Trump claimed the authority of judge and jury. He saw no law that could stop him from doing what he wants, to whomever he wants, because his word is law.
But Trump couldn’t have gotten away with treason by himself. First, there were the Republicans who saved him from being held accountable by the same Congress that he attacked. Then there were the oligarchs who paid for a massive rightwing media complex that defended an unapologetic traitor and encouraged conspiratorial thinking among followers. Then there were the mainstream corporate leaders on Wall Street and beyond, who quickly understood that he really could get away with it, like all the other elites over the last 20 years who’d gotten away with their crimes.
Every single Trump ally already believed they were above the law, morality and tradition. That belief was validated by GOP justices on the Supreme Court, who manufactured legal immunity, and by Trump’s victory. Society is now at a point where one of the world’s biggest communications platforms, owned by one of the world’s richest men, can produce literal child pornography — and the elites of the world just shrug.
What began on Jan. 6, 2021, was continued the day Trump was sworn back into office. From there was a renewed push to unwind the political settlements of the previous century. The explicit goal was to loot the safety net; create a secret police force; suppress freedoms of speech, religion and movement; immiserate the property-owning middle classes; and reshape society so that rich white men like Trump could once again rule with impunity.
The never-ending insurrection applied to foreign affairs as well. Trump has sabotaged the lawful, international order that the US established after the atrocities of World War II. Bribery of the American president is now factored into the cost of global trade, a pattern of corruption that will no doubt deepen as heads of state realize that, in the wake of the kidnapping of Venezuela’s Nicolas Maduro, Donald Trump will take what he wants if it is not given to him.
The institutions of democracy — in this, I include the courts, the media and universities as well as the American people — now face a never-ending insurrection, because they failed to hold a traitor, and the corrupt elites before him, accountable for their crimes. And as long as we keep failing, we can keep expecting more of the same.
As Trump said after the attack on Venezuela, “We can do it again, too. Nobody can stop us."
All that said, the truth about the J6 insurrection isn't going away, no matter how contested it is currently. Do you see a time in the future when justice will prevail? Or do you think injustice baked into the cake of the American republic?
These are some of the questions I asked Adam Cohen, a lawyer and activist with a large online following who commented thoroughly on Jack Smith’s deposition. (It was released on New Year’s Eve by Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee for absolute minimum exposure to it.)
Adam chose to be optimistic.
“Some people scoff at the concepts of American ingenuity and exceptionalism, but I think we're going to need some realistic, feasible ideas to fix our country,” Adam told me.
“I think we can, but it's going to take time, perhaps generations. I mean, we've been trying to get this right for 250 years. We just have to keep pressing forward, calling out the inequalities inherent in our system and look for ways to fix them. We've done it before. We can do it again.”
JS: Today is the anniversary of the J6 insurrection. Trump is president again. Jack Smith said last month that there is proof beyond doubt that he's responsible for the attempted takeover of the US government. Did he get away with it?
AC: The January 6 select committee extensively showed the depths that Trump went through to illegally steal the 2020 election — the lies, the extortion of election officials, the attempts to find 11,780 nonexistent votes, the fake electors, and the insurrection itself, which included incitement, threats against his own vice president, refusal — for hours — to do anything to stop it, and telling his supporters who had just bludgeoned 140 police officers that he loved them.
He was never prosecuted, and now he's president.
Unfortunately, the answer to your question is self-evident.
Smith said the attack could not have happened without Trump. It looks like those who said he was campaigning to stay out of jail were right. Even Joe Biden said that. What does that say about the system? What can reformers do?
I believe Smith's testimony showed that Trump announced he was running shortly after it was announced there was going to be a criminal investigation into the classified documents scandal and, potentially, January 6.
During his candidacy, Trump repeatedly attacked the investigation as an attempt to silence him. He then argued for — and received — immunity from a Supreme Court featuring three of nine justices chosen by him. Even the most cynical of us were shocked by that opinion. The whole affair exposed significant cracks in the system. We need to look at serious SCOTUS reform, then go on from there.
What was the most damning thing in Smith's deposition? What was the key detail that made you think this is the reason the Republicans released it on New Year's Eve.
Even though we've seen so much coverage of January 6, time has a frustrating way of dulling memory, doesn't it? So it was profoundly infuriating to be reminded that almost all of Trump’s co-conspirators were Republican officials. And they were willing to testify against him. You have to think he didn't want the world, and especially MAGA, to see how thoroughly they were duped, used and summarily discarded.
This president claims the right to kidnap leaders of foreign countries in order to try them in US courts. He also claims total immunity from US courts. Forget about whether he's above the law. He is. The question is whether and for how long Americans will tolerate a depraved president.
Oh boy, you're asking the wrong person. I was out in 2015 when he came down the escalator and called Mexicans criminals — and the campaign rhetoric devolved from there.
Then, four years after January 6th, he gets reelected?
It really shakes your faith in our politics.
The truth about J6 isn't going away, no matter how contested it is. Do you see a future in which justice will be done to future evil men, if not this president, who is 79? Or is injustice baked into the cake of the American republic?
The optimist in me says we will reform our government to stop this from happening in the future. The pessimist sees the Supreme Court greatly expanding executive power, which will be difficult if not impossible to overcome.
Some people scoff at the concepts of American ingenuity and exceptionalism, but I think we're going to need some realistic, feasible ideas to fix our country.
I think we can, but it's going to take time, perhaps generations. I mean, we've been trying to get this right for 250 years. We just have to keep pressing forward, calling out the inequalities inherent in our system and look for ways to fix them. We've done it before. We can do it again.
Keep reading...
Show less
Character assassination after a killing: how Minneapolis shows Trump's contempt for us all
Renee Nicole Good is dead. She was murdered in cold blood in Minneapolis by a masked federal agent who had to know his safety was never in question.
The agent ordered Good out of her SUV. She turned the wheels away from him to go home. He was apparently offended that she didn’t immediately follow orders, so he shot her three times in the face, twice as her vehicle veered away.
That’s my take from watching several versions of the horrible incident, recorded from a variety of angles. If your eyes don’t have cataracts, it’s pretty clear Good was neither trying to ram the agent (since identified as Jonathan Ross) nor interact with him in any way. She was frightened and just wanted to get out of Dodge.
Ross stood to the side of her car, out of its path, and was barely brushed as Good attempted to flee. Yet he felt that was sufficient justification to end the life of a 37-year-old mother of three, the widow of a military veteran.
The video has been dissected like the Zapruder film. All that’s missing is a book depository and a grassy knoll.
But those trumpeting the glory of ICE and MAGA didn’t require anything close to evidence. They made their calculation as a snap judgment. Our “president” saw fit to weigh in on Truth Social some two hours after Good perished on Wednesday, claiming she “violently, willfully, and viciously ran over” Ross.
“Based on the attached clip, it is hard to believe he is alive, but he is now recovering in the hospital,” Trump wrote.
Based on the attached clip — shot seemingly from at least 50 yards away in super-slo-mo, largely blocked by trees — it was hard to believe anyone could tell a thing. Ross didn’t receive so much as a scratch and any “hospital stay” likely amounted to minutes. But, you know, facts. Who needs them?
Very shortly thereafter, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem showed up ready for her close-up in shiny lip gloss and an outrageous ten-gallon hat.
Noem declared that Ross acted completely appropriately to protect himself from vehicular assault, while Good’s actions amounted to “an act of domestic terrorism.”
Yes, before her body was cold, Good’s character was assassinated. No “It’s too early to speculate” or “We’re launching an independent investigation.” No caution or restraint. Simply immediate justification, judge and jury, the unmistakable implication being that the deceased was an activist monster who deserved her fate.
It was a blatant, revolting lie.
Make no mistake, this was an execution in broad daylight, entirely avoidable too.
It wasn’t enough that Renee Good was another liberal head in the Republican trophy case. MAGAworld had to smear her too.
Vice President JD Vance branded her a “deranged leftist,” paying for the sins of all the other resistance moms.
The Trump-adoring radio host Erick Erickson labeled her an AWFUL, which stands for “Affluent White Female Urban Liberal.”
This was mere hours after the woman’s tragic death. No longer does being a lowlife attack dog come with a time moratorium.
A man holds up a sign as people gather at the scene of the fatal shooting of Renee Nicole Good. REUTERS/Tim Evans
Things picked up from there, to move at warp speed. The feds stepped up to defend the shooter and frame the narrative. We were told that based on his training, Ross acted appropriately in discharging his weapon at point-blank range on an unarmed, fearful woman who was no threat to him.
As of this writing, Ross has been neither charged nor suspended. He is instead, in all likelihood, being regularly high-fived. The public is assured that all appropriate measures are being taken and to trust things will be handled internally. What could possibly go wrong?
It wasn’t long before the FBI seized control of the “investigation” and told officials in Minnesota their assistance wouldn’t be needed. The probe would now be a solo one, to the frustration and anger of Minnesota Governor Tim Walz and the state Bureau of Criminal Apprehension.
This is an administration closing ranks and covering its tracks. Local oversight had to be sent packing, because what if it found that Ross’s actions went beyond a justifiable use of force? That wouldn’t do at all. Therefore, a corrupt group will conduct its own corrupt inquiry, leading to a corrupt partisan judgment, months down the line.
When the federal government kills a civilian and then obstructs the state from reviewing the evidence, it’s not safeguarding the process. It’s covering its ass.
These guys have seen the same videos as the rest of us. They know Ross is guilty of overreacting with rage in the moment and must be charged with voluntary manslaughter at minimum. They’re merely pretending to believe otherwise.
You can always tell when they’re being deceptive, which, let’s face it, is basically 99.9 percent of the time. In defending the indefensible, they grow increasingly loud and forceful.
As usual, they’re taking their cues from the Trump playbook, courtesy of the president’s former lawyer and mentor, Roy Cohn:
- Never apologize or admit wrongdoing, ever.
- Always counterattack, and always with greater force than you received.
- Manipulate the media ruthlessly.
- Use fear as both shield and sword.
So that’s where we are. The obvious message is that ICE can do whatever it damn well pleases, including blowing away a white Christian mom who loved to sing and write poetry. She committed the crime of being in the wrong place at the wrong time, which is to say, wherever ICE gathers.
As my eloquent nephew Joey Lange declared on social media this week, “We are now at the edge of an abyss. ICE is no longer playing dress-up diet fascism.”
This time, Good paid with her life. Next time, it could be any one of us.
- Ray Richmond is a longtime journalist/author and an adjunct professor at Chapman University in Orange, CA.
Keep reading...
Show less
This contradictory Trump attack revealed his true, appalling colours
Under international law, all nations own the natural resources found within their borders. Not just rich nations, not just powerful ones; all nations possess the inherent right to consume, extract, preserve or even waste their own natural resources according to their own self-determined needs.
This basic premise, a foundational pillar of global stability, is reinforced throughout the United Nations Charter supporting state sovereignty and self-determination in Articles 1 and 55, and is spelled out in the Charter of Economic Rights and Duties of States granting every State “full permanent sovereignty ... over all its wealth, natural resources and economic activities.”
Under Article 2(4) of the UN charter, a nation cannot use force on the sovereign territory of another country without its consent, or without the authorization of the UN Security Council, unless the use of force is in self-defense.
Following the horrors of the trenches, Hitler, and 90 million deaths in two world wars, the UN Charter was designed to stop nations from doing exactly what Trump just did in Venezuela.
On Jan. 3, under Trump’s direction and without congressional authority, U.S. forces captured President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, in a nighttime raid, all while U.S. forces continued seizing Venezuela’s oil and struck military bases, killing at least 80 people who posed no prior threat to the U.S.
Overnight, the international order of sovereignty and the rule of law marched backward into Trump’s Neanderthal world of brute force, while Big Oil-aligned Fox News cheered.
Dispensing with democracy to serve the oil industry
Maduro ruled through repression, corruption, media control, and singular brutality. Human Rights Watch reported that Maduro’s regime had systematically “killed, tortured, detained, and forcefully disappeared people” for the crime of seeking democratic change. Although, like Trump, Maduro still had the support of 30 percent of his citizens, he will not be missed.
Yet despite toppling him, Trump left Maduro’s brutality machine in place, grievously disappointing Venezuelans who danced in the streets. Trump told reporters Maduro’s own Vice President, Delcy Rodríguez, would remain in power, but only so long as she “does what we want,” to which Ms. Rodríguez responded, “What is being done to Venezuela is a barbarity” — before later softening her tone.
Trump apparently chose Rodríguez for her management expertise in the Venezuelan oil industry as well as Venezuela’s murderous intelligence apparatus. She also enjoys strong ties with U.S. Republicans in the oil industry. After tapping Rodríguez, Trump threatened her, saying, “If she doesn’t do what’s right, she is going to pay a very big price, probably bigger than Maduro.”
A petty man gets his petty revenge
Following the attack, Trump announced that the U.S. would “run” Venezuela with oil-wealth aspirations more conceptual than concrete.
Like his oft-alluded to “concept of a plan” for health care that has still not materialized, Trump said he would provide the “vision for how Venezuela should be run,” and commanded his hand-picked leader to carry out his vision under threat of force.
In Rodríguez, Trump named a leader of the same government he just labeled illegitimate, while dismissing political heir apparent María Corina Machado. Machado, a national political hero, won the 2025 Nobel Peace Prize for leading Venezuela’s struggle for democracy in the face of Maduro’s cruel and ever-expanding authoritarianism. After Maduro “banned” her candidacy, her political movement still defeated him in the 2024 presidential election by a 37-point margin.
Despite her electoral victory, chops, and 65 percent support among Venezuelans, Trump claims Machado “lacks the respect” needed to run Venezuela.
Inside sources say Machado offended Trump’s ego when she accepted the Nobel Peace Prize he covets. Put a pin in the absurdity of a peace prize for a man who deploys the military against his own country, murders people in fishing boats, and now threatens violent expansion against peaceful neighbors.
All for the love of oil
Venezuela has the largest oil reserves in the world, to which an unscrupulous and dangerous U.S. president has now laid claim, on behalf of private oil investors. It is also being led by a close ally of Maduro hand-picked by Trump, who apparently intends to be puppet master and intervenor to an already corrupt and brutal regime.
Trump told reporters administration officials would designate “various people” to “run” Venezuela, “and we’re gonna let you know who those people are,” but the lack of detail has led many to question why there was no detailed plan in place before Maduro was toppled. It’s like Trump wrecking healthcare for 20 million Americans without first putting an alternative in place, and will similarly lead to loss of life.
Even though Maduro will not be missed, the end cannot justify the means where the end includes regional instability, economic collapse, and losses still unknowable. As Trump flirts with boots on the ground in Venezuela, licking his Cro-Magnon lips at the taste of raw brute power, he has begun threatening Cuba, Colombia, and Greenland in earnest.
“Just war’” theory, on which the post-World War II democratic world order is built, depends on and expects restraint from the powerful. Trump has again acted without restraint, without congressional authority, and without the concept of a plan for what comes next.
By eschewing any notion of restoring democracy to the Venezuelan people, Trump has revealed his imperialist Big Oil mission as unadorned thuggery.
- Sabrina Haake is a columnist and 25+ year federal trial attorney specializing in 1st and 14th A defense. Her Substack, The Haake Take, is free.
Keep reading...
Show less
Pittsburgh just sent a chilling warning for American democracy
The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette announced on Jan. 7, 2026, that it will cease all operations effective May 3. The daily newspaper, founded in 1786, has been the city’s paper of record for nearly a century and is one of the oldest newspapers in the country.
Block Communications, the company that owns the Post-Gazette, says the paper has lost “hundreds of millions of dollars” during the past two decades. The shuttering of the Post-Gazette comes after a three-year strike by newspaper employees who were asking management for better wages and working conditions. The strike ended in November 2025 after an appellate court ruled in favor of the union workers. The Post-Gazette was found to have violated federal labor law by cutting health care benefits and failing to bargain in good faith. Then, on Jan. 7, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against the paper, stating that the Post-Gazette was required to adjust its health insurance coverage for union members. Hours later, Block Communications announced that the paper would shut down.
Victor Pickard, an expert on the U.S. media and its role in democracy, was born and raised just outside Pittsburgh. He talked to Cassandra Stone, The Conversation U.S. Pittsburgh editor, about what the closing means for local journalism and democracy.
CS: Newspapers have been in decline for decades. How significant is this closure?
VP: The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette has long been a vital part of the local community throughout western Pennsylvania. This would be the first major metropolitan newspaper closing since the Tampa Tribune shut its doors in 2016, and it’s a devastating blow to residents in that entire area of the state. Block Communications also closed down the Pittsburgh City Paper, which is an alt-weekly newspaper in Pittsburgh, in January 2026. The loss of the Post-Gazette will likely create a major gap in local news coverage.
How much did the labor strike from 2022-25 affect the newspaper’s profitability?
I wouldn’t pin the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette’s loss of profitability on the strike — which was legitimate and did have a profound impact — as much as on the structural forces affecting nearly all local newspapers at this time.
Throughout the country, local journalism increasingly is no longer a profitable enterprise. The core business model of being reliant on advertising revenue has irreparably collapsed, and subscriptions rarely generate enough financial support.
Since the early 2000s, the U.S. has lost about 40 percent of its local newspapers and about 75 percent of the jobs in newspaper journalism, according to a 2025 report from the Medill School of Journalism at Northwestern University. A study published last year by Rebuild Local News and Muck Rack shows that in 2002, there were roughly 40 journalists per 100,000 people in the United States. Today, it’s down to about eight journalists.
This evisceration of local journalism leads to ever-expanding news deserts across the country, where tens of millions of Americans are living in areas with little or no local news media whatsoever.
How might this affect local civic engagement and democracy in Pittsburgh?
Democracy requires a free and functional press system. When a local newspaper closes, fewer people vote and get involved in local politics, and corruption and polarization increase.
Without local news outlets, people often turn to national news or even “pink slime” news sites. These sites masquerade as official local media institutions but in fact are often propagandistic outlets that amplify misinformation and disinformation.
With the retreat of newspapers, people are receiving less high-quality news and information. This means that people living in these areas are less knowledgeable about politics. They often don’t know who’s running for office in their communities, or what their political platforms are, and there’s just less civic engagement in general.
Most Americans have 24/7 access to unlimited news and information through their social media feeds, including local news influencers. Does this counteract the loss of local reporting?
I think an important distinction needs to be made between carefully reported and fact-checked articles and what seems like a glut of information at our fingertips at all times. Beyond the surface-level appearance of countless news sites, social media reports offer relatively few new facts that have been borne out of rigorous reporting.
You could say that Americans are living in a new golden age of political discourse, where we constantly see a churn of social media-based forms of expression. But that’s not necessarily journalism.
When we’re talking about the collapse of newspapers and fewer newspaper journalists working their beats, it would be an entirely different story if that journalism were being replaced by other institutions, by influencers, by podcasters. But many of those outlets are amplifying opinion-based commentary and punditry.
That’s not the same thing as reporting that adheres to journalistic norms and introduces new information into the world. Losing this kind of knowledge production hurts communities everywhere – from small towns and rural areas to major cities like Pittsburgh.
Keep reading...
Show less
Copyright © 2026 Raw Story Media, Inc. PO Box 21050, Washington, D.C. 20009 |
Masthead
|
Privacy Policy
|
Manage Preferences
|
Debug Logs
For corrections contact
corrections@rawstory.com
, for support contact
support@rawstory.com
.