May 21, 2019: Profile In Courage, Juvenile tRUMPspeak, Mitt Found Wanting

I am not a supporter of Justin Amash. Amash is a Teabagger, one of the founding members of that unholy lot, who has voted to strip millions of their health coverage and otherwise savage the “safety-net”. He has also supported Paul Ryan over the years in obstructing everything former President Obama tried to accomplish. He has been misrepresenting his district for nearly a decade now.

Amash sits in the seat once occupied by former President Gerald Ford who rose to party leadership misrepresenting, in turn, the city of Grand Rapids, Michigan and its environs. Ford, however, knew compromise, Ford could reach across the isle. Ford could work to get things done. Not so, the troglodytes that now control the Republican caucus.

But there comes a time when even the dullest knife in the drawer cuts deeply and last weekend was one of those times. Amash, taking to 'twitter' announced that the time had come to begin impeachment proceedings against Caesar Disgustus. Since he is the first Republican member of either house of Congress, to reach these crossroads his act must be seen for what it is: a profile in courage.

He knows that he has now earned the wrath of the Don-Almighty, who promptly took to 'tweeting' that Amash is a 'loser', --juvenile tRUMPspeak meaning disapproval—adding that he was only doing it for the publicity. I'm not convinced.

Indeed, immediately a challenger came forth swearing obeisance to Disgustus in hopes of upending Amash in the coming primaries. Amash can count on Disgustus coming to his home city and raising the roof at the VanSCANDAL arena as he whips up opposition into a fevered frenzy. But outside, in the streets, city, and villages I'm not so sure that the assault on Amash will resonate. One has only to recall that Disgustus opposed Roy Moore in the Alabama Senate primary and Moore won. Then he endorsed Moore in the general election and Moore lost. There are other examples, the Virginia governor's race among them. The shadow that Disgustus casts over the political landscape appears at times to be only as long as his fingers, which no amount of photo-shopping will rectify.

But rumor has it that Amash may seek the Libertarian nomination for President, in which case a primary challenger is pointless. Amash is positioned, therefore, to strip support from Disgustus in a must-win state and has the gravitas to do much better than previous Libertarians nationwide. The Libertarian Party will be, as in 2016, on the ballot in all 50 states.

This is what scares the shit out of Disgustus. Amash could well play the roll of Ross Perot and reduce the support of our erstwhile 'Caesar' will down into the high '30's, territory that could well mean a 50 state Democratic sweep. And so, the character assassination—the only thing Disgustus knows how to do—begins in earnest.

Although I oppose everything Amash stands for, I respect Amash for his courage and his principled stand. It will cost him politically and make him a pariah in his caucus. But it is the right thing to do. For months now rumors have been swirling that behind closed doors many—the extent is never certain—Republicans privately loathe tRUMP seeing him as the death-knell of the Party. How many of Justin's colleagues will likewise come out of the closet remains to be seen. Mitt Romney, who's father would be flailing tRUMP, equivocated, issuing a nonsensical response to Amash and, by comparison, is now found wanting. Mitt is such a disappointment.

But Amash did have some effect for, however narrowly, the calls to begin impeachment proceedings are now bipartisan and pressure is mounting on Speaker Pelosi and the Democratic House leadership to move. Only time will tell if this is the end of the beginning or the beginning of the end for Caesar Disgustus.

An Br'er Putin, he jus' laugh and laugh

Impeach and Imprison.

April 26, 2019: The Impeachment Imperative, Not An Option, Worst Kind of Partisanship

Our Caesar Disgustus is begging us to impeach him.  He knows he's unfit for the office.  He knows he's a miserable failure.  Deep down inside he knows that he is in over his head and is drowning but he has not the courage to resign.  He also knows that resignation will leave him open to immediate indictment and prosecution.  So he hangs on, begging the public to resolve the crisis.

He also knows that he can play the martyr when the Democrats finally screw up the courage to confront this constitutional crisis.  Martyrdom fits in well with the persecution complex of his following and he will play it to the hilt.

But the Democrats cannot let the prospect of our Disgustus squealing like the pig he is when the axe begins to fall prevent them from doing their constitutional duty.  Already we hear even the "progressives" within the Party murmur that it is useless to impeach, that the election is right around the corner and that if they move against Disgustus his senate lackeys will simply not vote to convict and remove him from office.  In the aftermath, they reason, Disgustus will emerge triumphant and will be out of control.

He already is.

Already he has taken "victory laps" in the wake of the Mueller report, or at least Attorney General Barr's summary of it, claiming total exoneration, that he was a victim of a partisan 'witch hunt', and promising retribution in the aftermath.  Already he is emboldened to resist virtually every inquiry by Congress into the corruption of this maladministration.  Already he is framing the debate for the next election, declaring himself triumphant in the face of his adversaries.  Already he is about tearing up even more international agreements, this time weapons agreements, to satisfy his political base.

Disgustus is begging to be impeached.

It is wrong to frame this question in the context of the next election.  Democrats from Pelosi and Barney Frank to Bernie Sanders are telling the nation, citing the Clinton experience,  that to impeach will backfire and ensure the re-election of Donald tRUMP.  First, we cannot use the Clinton experience as a guide, nor should we.  The Clinton impeachment was another capital example of the "generation of swine" making a pig's breakfast of everything they touch.  Like the ReSCUMlickan tax bill, or their efforts to repeal Obamacare, there were no hearings.  Only Special Prosecutor Kenneth Starr appeared before the Congress as he presented his report and then the scum moved to impeach without calling any witnesses, failing to present the case--such as it was--before the nation.  Clinton had lied to authorities and there was some legal jeopardy, but the nation--always focused on tits and ass; always drawn to the seedy and tawdry--didn't hear the legal argument for obstruction.  As a consequence the country decided that whatever the offense it didn't matter and moved on.

But we are confronted here with much, much more than lying about illicit sex.  The brazen contempt of this 'president' for the institutions of this country, the intelligence community, the justice department, the courts, the congress, the press and even the leadership of his own party, as well as his overt disregard for the rule of law demand action.  Here the Watergate example is much more instructive.  Hearings must begin into this administration and the corruption that pervades it.  It isn't just tRUMP, it is also the people who surround him.  His daughter, his son-in-law, as noted in the previous post.  We know that tRUMP has a long financial connection to the Russian oligarchy, we must look into Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross and his ties to Deutchebank and the Bank of Cyprus, both known for laundering Russian mob money. Then there are Betsy DeVos and her brother Eric Prince both staunch advocates of privatization who have reaped huge financial rewards from the outsourcing of public funds.  And we haven't even begun to hear from the Southern District of New York, the New York State Attorney General's office or the jurisdictions in Northern Virginia--conducting at least a dozen more investigations into tRUMP and his dealings.

tRUMP biographer David Kay Johnston, as well as others, have written about the corruptions that surround the tRUMP 'empire'.  As noted in these columns, the New York Times published a lengthy article detailing the intergenerational organized syndicate that is the tRUMP family detailing decades of tax evasion and bank fraud.  tRUMP attorney Michael Cohen has testified to insurance fraud.  David Kay Johnston has written about money laundering.  And there is much more.

It is now beyond doubt that our Caesar Disgustus is the least informed, most ignorant, incompetent and corrupt individual ever to darken the door of the White House.  He represents a clear and present danger.  Impeachment is not an option, it is an imperative.

To fail to impeach is to abrogate responsibility.  To fail to impeach is to violate one's oath of office.  To fail to impeach is to fail our constitution.  To fail to impeach is to fail our country.  To fail to impeach because of feared political consequence is to practice the worst kind of partisanship.

Impeaching Caesar Disgustus is an ethical, legal and political imperative.  Justice and the nation demand it.

"An Br'er Putin, he jus' laugh and laugh"

Impeach and Imprison

April 1, 2019: Question of Timing, A Constitutional Crisis, All Become the Fool.

On that bright Tuesday in November, 1932, the country had reason to sing “Happy Days Are Here Again”. The country was in the grips of a deep economic depression and a new president had been elected and with him overwhelming majorities in both houses of Congress. Change was coming.

It had been over three years since the stock market had crashed. It had since rebounded before tumbling yet again, but the damage was done. Confidence was shaken and the economy ground to a near halt. Twenty five percent of the work force was now unemployed and millions more were working at wages far below what they had earned only a few months before. “Hoovervilles”, shanty towns really, so named in the President's honor, had sprung up—like thistles on a well trimmed lawn-- all across the land. Panic had given way to despair. The pain had set in.

Upon defeat, President Hoover had, in the waning moments of his administration, come up with another program to alleviate the crisis. Roosevelt, the incoming President, would have none of it.

In those days the election was held in November but the new President would not be sworn in until March. Four months the nation would wait, and Roosevelt—telling Hoover that the nation has only one President—would not budge. Hoover would own it.

Roosevelt's inaugural address is now remembered for the words “we have nothing to fear, but fear itself...” but that wasn't the most significant part of the speech. In this first address to the nation, Roosevelt asked for war powers, declaring the crisis to be on par with war, the damage done equal to a foreign invasion. He asked for the tools and the nation responded.

He could only have done that in the depths of crisis and he could only have done it if he could disown what had created the crisis and declare that now we start anew. Like Lincoln, Roosevelt understood that a cold break with the past was imperative.

But the timing, in recent history, has proved unfortunate. Tricky Dick Nixon was just beginning his second term when the storm of Watergate began to engulf the ship. No such luck here.

In 2008, the crisis had not reached epic proportions until late in the year. The economy had begun to shudder under the strain of the housing crisis a year before but it wasn't until the parasites on Wall Street began to game the oil markets that the house of cards began to collapse. With gasoline, in some places, above five dollars a gallon Americans suddenly found themselves up against the wall. With serious commutes and even more daunting mortgages, households suddenly found themselves having to skip the mortgage and rent payments in order to get to work. The result, wholly predictable, ensued.

The rest, in the idiom of our time, is history. But not only did the nation not have enough time to absorb the enormity of the crisis, but Obama—unlike Roosevelt—quickly signed on to Bush policies to deal with the crisis, getting little in return—and, in the process—transforming himself into Republican-lite.

Let's be clear here. The crisis simply didn't go on long enough. The pain wasn't near as deep as it should have been—if we had followed the idiocy of the likes of Ayn Rand and other capitalist idiotlogues . The consequence is that Obama quickly owned the crisis and he himself said as much. This, in turn, allowed the quickly emerging opposition fueled by the billionaires and populated by the knuckle-draggers to paint the newly minted president as somehow part of the established elite while at the same time a migrant from the mud-huts of Kenya. In any case, the chance for real reform was lost. The response and the timing were not quite right.

Similarly, with our present crisis. Our Caesar Disgustus has now been under investigation since well before he was sworn into office. But the crisis had not reached the level of collective consciousness necessary for remedial action until well into his first year in office. With his own party totally bereft of conscience or principle, in control of both houses, Congress abdicated its sworn duty to protect and defend the constitution, opting to do the exact opposite by defending the criminals instead. Abdicating Congressional oversight in favor of passing the responsibility to the Department of Justice delayed public exposure of criminality to the point where the country now finds itself bumping up against the next quadrennial election. Yes, there is political remedy at the polls, but this does not acquit the Congress of its sworn duty to protect the republic from graft, corruption and abuse of power. Again, if impeachment wasn't written into the Constitution for tRUMP, then who, and if not now, when?

The timing is off. That we know. It would be chaos if impeachment proceedings were to occur during the heat of the upcoming election. Justice demands action. This is not a question to be decided by plebiscite; this is not a political question, it is a constitutional crisis. And the constitutional remedy of impeachment, like the bill of rights, is not and cannot be allowed to become a question determined by the passion of the moment. It must, instead, be remedied by Constitutional and established legal process. We must act now or, like Obama, we will all own it. The clock is ticking. Time waits for no one. Whatever the Russians have done to us, we must now roll the dice and confront the outcome.

On this April first, we've all become the fool.

“An Br'er Putin, he jus' laugh and laugh”

Impeach and Imprison.

February 9, 2019: Impeach, Paralyzed By Legacy, Profile In Courage

We are paralyzed by the legacy of Bill Clinton. Oh, I'm not talking about the repeal of Glass-Steagall, nor his savaging of the social safety net. I'm referring to his impeachment and the pig's breakfast that the Generation of Swine had made of the entire process. The Swine had made such a hash of it, that the Democratic leadership from Nancy Pelosi to the now retired Barney Frank, repeat the mantra that it is too early to talk about impeachment, so terrified are they of the consequences.

Democrats are terrified because it was their experience, the leadership of the party having been in office all those years ago to witness the debacle, that when the president was impeached back in the nineties, his popularity rose. And, being loathe to do anything to possibly raise the popularity of this vulgarian, and risk his re-election in the bargain, Democrats prefer to abdicate their sworn constitutional obligation to impeach and end this bastard presidency, preferring instead to let Robert Mueller make a case for his removal later, it 2020, at the ballot box.

All that is well and good, but it assumes that Mueller's report sees the light of day, since the Attorney General can move to restrict its release and/or release it only in part. It also assumes that the Democratic Party avoids another act of inspired stupidity by nominating someone who can actually defeat this ignorant and malignant jackass at the polls. Again, never underestimate the ability of the Democratic Party to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

The lessons of history are not always readily apparent, and the lesson of Bill Clinton, as it is currently understood, should be no guide to impeachment or its consequences.

This month's edition of the venerable Atlantic magazine hit my front porch today with a headline Impeach emblazoned across the front cover. It is time, Yoni Appelbaum writes, for Congress to judge the president's fitness to serve. (1) Indeed, as I have noted for nearly two years in these columns, it is. In fact, it is long past time.

The Clinton case, like the Andrew Johnson case, are cited as examples of impeachment proceedings that are viewed today as simple partisanship run amok, and as failures as a remedy. Applebaum argues otherwise.

“The closest the senate has ever come to removing a president was in 1868,” writes Applebaum, “after Andrew Johnson was impeached on 11 counts. Remembered today as a lamentable exercise in hyper-partisanship, in fact Johnson's impeachment functioned as the Founders had intended, sparing the country from further depredations of a president who had betrayed his most basic responsibilities. We need to recover the real story of Johnson's impeachment, because it offers the best evidence that the current president, too, must be impeached.

“The case before the United States in 1868 bears striking similarities to the case before the country now—and no president in history more resembles the 45^th than the 17^th. 'The president of the United States,' E.P. Whipple wrote in this magazine in 1866, 'has so singular a combination of defects for the office of a constitutional magistrate, that he could have obtained the opportunity to misrule the nation only by a visitation of providence. Insincere as well as stubborn, cunning as well as unreasonable, vain as well as ill-tempered, greedy of popularity as well as arbitrary in disposition, veering in his mind as well as fixed in his will, he unites in his character the seemingly opposite qualities of demagogue and autocrat.' Johnson, he continued, was 'egotistic to the point of mental disease' and had become 'the prey of intriguers and sycophants.'” (2) Sound familiar?

Johnson's battle with Congress was over the shape of post Civil War America. The Republicans in Congress sought reconstruction, Johnson sought some form of restoration. But was it a failure? Was it the unwarranted partisan 'witch hunt' that historians—including John Kennedy in his Profiles In Courage—make it out to be? Kennedy, a student of history, was simply repeating the conventional wisdom and citing the lone senator who made the difference, as Johnson survived the trial in the senate by one vote.

But Applebaum makes the case that this is, precisely, the wrong lesson to be drawn from the proceedings—for proceedings they are. He points out that the impeachment froze Johnson—as it would later Bill Clinton in his tracks, forcing the sitting president to focus his energy on survival and, therefore, limiting the damage done. For the first time presidential veto's were overridden, and the Congress instigated several constitutional amendments that forever changed the nature of the federal government, including the nature of citizenship itself. Johnson, in the aftermath, did not get the nomination of his party, and Al Gore, following Clinton, lost the ensuing election despite a healthy economy and a budget surplus for the first time in a generation.

Gleaning historical lessons can be a tricky business, much like FDR's famous court-packing scheme. Historians universally proclaim it a failure, but the court never again ruled a major piece of New Deal legislation unconstitutional. So, perhaps, it is best to look upon the historical record with a more discerning eye.

It is also important to note that the Clinton case falls under the purview of the Generation of Swine, that is, the 'Boomers'. Leave it to the Boomers to make a botch of the process—or, more accurately, circumvent the process altogether. Applebaum notes that the major defects of the Clinton proceedings were that the charges did not rise to the occasion and that there were no proceedings. Instead, the Congress was presented with a report from Special Prosecutor Ken Starr and used this as the basis for the constitutional remedy. Contrast this with Watergate, a proceeding conducted under the auspices of the previous generation, where there were months of hearings, testimony under the klieg lights, so that the nation saw for itself the iniquities that lie beneath. All that was discarded when the 'Boomers', led by Newt Gingrich, came to power. By violating process, the Generation of Swine, had turned the proceedings into farce.

As we speak the Democrats, with the 'Boomers' still at the helm, are fixing to repeat the debacle. There are now articles of impeachment placed before the house, as the house now awaits yet another report from a Special Council. This turns process on it's head, and aborts any real procedure. As I wrote to Congressman Henry Hyde, back when Clinton was impeached, the conduct of the House Judiciary Committee violated all norms of procedural due process and, therefore, denied justice.

It is, therefore, a mistake for the Democrats not to take up impeachment. It should have been done when our Caesar Disgustus fired FBI director Comey for his refusal to stop the investigations. The country needs the process, not only to reveal the high crimes and misdemeanors of this bastard presidency, but—by forcing our Caesar Disgustus to spend his 'executive' time fighting for his very political, legal and financial survival—to reign in on this maladministration. 

The proceedings, Applebaum notes, would also serve to lower the heated partisan debate and, like in Johnson's day, reduce the chances of civil revolt.  It would do so because of the proceedings.  By taking the conduct of this 'president' from the public debate and putting it before a quasi-judicial body--the Congress--the country would witness a serious deliberative procedure, revealing in its nature.  It would take the debate from conjecture to fact.  The proceedings would convey legitimacy upon judgement, narrowing the partisan divide and cooling the heated debate.  Proceedings.  We need proceedings.  It was the lack of proceedings and due process that gave stench of illegitimacy to the Clinton affair.  But the Generation of Swine, for whom experience is powerless to instruct, have drawn precisely the wrong conclusions. 

It is also a mistake to draw up articles before the hearings. Let the hearings begin, and it is deeply troubling that Adam Schiff, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, has agreed to question Michael Cohen behind closed doors in secret session. No! This must be done in the open, in broad daylight. The country must learn from the principles how deep runs the rot and corruption.

And only then can the case be made and put before the senate. It will be up to the Republicans, then, to decide the fate our our would be autocrat. The burden will be placed on them. It will then be up to the Republican Party—the author of this mess—to answer at the bar of history, and to decide if it wants to live or if it wants to die. That would be a real Profile In Courage.

“An Br'er Putin, he jus' laugh and laugh”

Impeach and Imprison.

_____________

1. The Atlantic. March 2019  Pages 74-85
2. Applebaum, Yoni “The Case for Impeachment” The Atlantic. March 2019. Page 83

August 1, 2018: Saxon Mother's Son, Crimes and Misdemeanors, Unfit to Serve

“The All-American, bullet-headed, Saxon mother's son”

                     ----The Beatles "Bungalow Bill"

So one can describe one Gerald Rudolph Ford. Ford, who parlayed local celebrity as a jock into several terms in the United States House of Representatives, eventually rising to minority leadership, was moved to quip as Jonathan Turley, professor of public interest law at George Washington University, notes that “An impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at any given moment in history”. (1) Writing in The Washington Post in August of 2014 Turley added parenthetically, “This interpretation was, not surprisingly, part of a frivolous effort to impeach Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas, whom Ford denounced for espousing “liberal opinions,” for defending the “filthy” Swedish film “I Am Curious (Yellow)” and for writing a magazine article that “praises the lusty, lurid, and risque along with the social protest of left-wing folk singers.” (2)

Giving as he did solace to those who were ardent to impeach Supreme Court Justices,  groups such as the John Birch Society, who campaigned to impeac Chief Justice Earl Warren for decisions ending school segregation, ruling that congressional districts had to be drawn so as to have as equal populations as possible (one- man-one-vote), and that police and prosecutors could not convict if they violate a defendant's rights of substantive and procedural due process (Miranda decision); the man, who in the words of Lyndon Johnson, couldn't walk and chew gum at the same time did, however, stumble upon a basic truth.

For it is a myth that the iniquities of power must reach the high bar of felonious assault upon the republic before the palliative of impeachment can be applied.

No, Virginia, there is no Santa Clause; and yes Virginia the president can be impeached “For Being Ye Publick Ass”.

“Benjamin Franklin asserted that the power of impeachment and removal was necessary for those times when the Executive "rendered himself obnoxious," and the Constitution should provide for the "regular punishment of the Executive when his conduct should deserve it, and for his honorable acquittal when he should be unjustly accused." James Madison said, "...impeachment... was indispensable" to defend the community against "the incapacity, negligence or perfidy of the chief Magistrate." With a single executive, Madison argued, unlike a legislature whose collective nature provided security, "loss of capacity or corruption was more within the compass of probable events, and either of them might be fatal to the Republic.”' (2)

“It was George Mason who offered up the term "high crimes and misdemeanors" as one of the criteria to remove public officials who abuse their office. Their original intentions can be gleaned by the phrases and words that were proposed before, such as "high misdemeanor", "maladministration", or "other crime". Edmund Randolf said impeachment should be reserved for those who "misbehave". Cotesworth Pinkney said, It should be reserved "...for those who behave amiss, or betray their public trust." As can be seen from all these references to "high crimes and misdemeanors", there is no concrete definition for the term, except to allow people to remove an official from office for subjective reasons entirely.

“ Alexander Hamilton said, "...those offences which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated political, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself."' (3)

Indeed the first federal official impeached and convicted was John Pickering, a federal Judge for “obnoxious behavior” arising from chronic intoxication.

“"High" in the legal and common parlance of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries of "high crimes" signifies activity by or against those who have special duties acquired by taking an oath of office that are not shared with common persons. A high crime is one that can only be done by someone in a unique position of authority, which is political in character, who does things to circumvent justice. The phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" when used together was a common phrase at the time the U.S. Constitution was written and did not mean any stringent or difficult criteria for determining guilt. It meant the opposite. The phrase was historically used to cover a very broad range of crimes. The Judiciary Committee's 1974 report "The Historical Origins of Impeachment" stated: "'High Crimes and Misdemeanors' has traditionally been considered a 'term of art', like such other constitutional phrases as 'levying war' and 'due process.' The Supreme Court has held that such phrases must be construed, not according to modern usage, but according to what the framers meant when they adopted them... (4)

It was from the English legal tradition that we borrowed the phrase “high crimes and misdemeanors”, and here the example is telling:

“Since 1386, the English parliament had used the term “high crimes and misdemeanors” to describe one of the grounds to impeach officials of the crown. Officials accused of “high crimes and misdemeanors” were accused of offenses as varied as misappropriating government funds, appointing unfit subordinates, not prosecuting cases, not spending money allocated by Parliament, promoting themselves ahead of more deserving candidates, threatening a grand jury, disobeying an order from Parliament, arresting a man to keep him from running for Parliament, losing a ship by neglecting to moor it, helping “suppress petitions to the King to call a Parliament,” granting warrants without cause, and bribery. Some of these charges were crimes. Others were not. The one common denominator in all these accusations was that the official had somehow abused the power of his office and was unfit to serve.”(5) Indeed, Nixon was impeached for, among other things, not spending money allocated by Congress. By these standards we can now add appointing unfit subordinates to the growing list of impeachable offenses.

No, Virginia, there is no Santa Clause; and yes Virginia the president can be impeached “For Being Ye Publick Ass”, among many more transgressions.

“An Br'er Putin, he jus' laugh and laugh”

Impeach and Imprison.

____________________

(1). Turley, Jonathan. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/five-myths-about-impeachment/2014/08/01/

2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_crimes_and_misdemeanors
3. Ibid.
4. Ibid
5. Ibid.

June 29, 2017: Impeach and Imprison, , Cries of the Damned, To Obstruct Justice

As the Watergate Scandal was heating up, an increasingly desperate Richard Nixon went to the country holding campaign-style rallies intending to shore up his fast-eroding political support.  These were the days before such events were mere photo opportunities, days when the crowds were attended not by carefully screened party faithful in housed events but in the open streets by anyone caring to attend; days in which candidates and politicians spoke to the congregation instead of singing only to the choir.  About every such gathering, worth its salt, one would often find protesters; and Nixon had just fired Watergate Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox fueling a storm of protest along with articles of impeachment in the House of Representatives.   On the periphery of one such Nixon event, late in the fall of 1973, was erected a long banner upon which was printed in stark black and white: “Impeach and Imprison”. 

This simple directive, in plain king’s English, quickly caught on becoming a staple of protestors now camped out round-the-clock on Pennsylvania avenue, many dressed in Nixon masks and prison stripes, holding placards reading “Honk If You Think He’s Guilty” creating a din that kept the president awake nearly night and day.  And, interspersed with this and other messages, one would regularly find placards imploring the country to “Impeach and Imprison”.

Had we done one or the other or, better yet, both, we would now be a far better nation.  Imagine if Nixon had been impeached and convicted.  Better yet imagine had he been removed from office and then made subject of criminal prosecution for obstruction and actually sent to prison.  Would we have had Iran-Contra?  Would Oliver North have been so cock sure that acting in the name of the president put him above the law?   Would we now have a ‘chief executive’ similarly so cock sure that he is likewise sovereign and above the law? 

Times have changed, but not entirely.  Today, Disgustus having fired FBI director James Comey who was investigating this Russian mess, we find ourselves facing a similar crisis but, alas, Pennsylvania Avenue since 9/11 has been closed to street traffic and pedestrians further insulating our ‘leaders’ from the “cries of the damned”. 

There are many facets of this Russian Scandal that need close examination.  From possible collusion with a foreign adversary to win an election; collusion involving everything from the manipulation of voter registration rolls and misinformation campaigns to the possible undermining of U.S. foreign policy, our alliances, and the international institutions that we have put in place as well as the lifting of sanctions against Russia in exchange for such assistance.  There have also surfaced questions about possible bank loans to tRUMP and associates, money-laundering and racketeering.  Some of this has been bubbling to the surface raising questions that demand thorough investigation. 

Comey, of course, had been alerted and put upon the scent of this trail over a year ago by several foreign intelligence agencies and has told Congress that there has been an open investigation into tRUMP and Associates since early summer of 2016.  Why the Director felt compelled to violate Bureau rules and guidelines and speak publicly of the investigation into the Clinton email mess while not informing the nation that the other party’s presumptive nominee was also under FBI investigation—on far more insidious matters—is not, as of this writing, yet clear.  But it had enraged the Democrats, as did his behavior regarding the Clinton campaign last year giving tRUMP the misguided belief that, since it could be said that Comey alone had handed Disgustus the presidency, he could move on Comey at any time with relative if not absolute impunity.  It would at once, so Disgustus thought, satisfy the Democrats and show the nation that Caesar would discipline his own.

Comey, upon his termination and the subsequent savaging of his service in several Disgustus’ “tweet storms”, released a statement that he had taken notes of his several meetings with Disgustus at the White House, notes written down immediately after each event the contents of which were shared with several high-ranking FBI officers so as to establish a contemporaneous record; for Comey did not trust this president to tell the truth.  This led tRUMP to respond—always via anti-social network—that there may be tapes of such conversations, tapes allegedly confirming the Disgustus version of reality.  Of course, the White House eventually confessed, there were no tapes for nothing coming from the White House is ever accurate, nearly everything an exaggeration, fabrication or bold-face lie. Lies intended to intimidate a possible witness, lies intending to call into question the veracity of a witness, lies intended to obstruct justice.   

The ‘tweet-exchange’ however, was enough for the Assistant Attorney General (Attorney General Sessions had long since recused himself from the investigation himself knee deep in the shit), to appoint an “Independent Counsel” to investigate the affair and for Comey to appear before the Senate Intelligence Committee to explain his side of the story.

It was a telling performance.  In over three hours of public testimony Comey recalled his meetings with tRUMP and his phone conversations.  He spoke of the Disgustus demanding his personal loyalty, and of asking the Director to call off the Bureau’s investigation of Michael Flynn, tRUMP’s original National Security Advisor who was forced to resign in a hailstorm of revelations about his Russian connections and his being an undisclosed agent of a foreign government (Turkey and, perhaps, Russia) during the campaign, the transition and as National Security Advisor.  On these points Comey demurred.

After several weeks in which Disgustus importuned the Director to call off his dogs and upon learning that the FBI investigation was moving into the financial dealings of tRUMP associates, including at least one principle “White House figure”, Disgustus moved to terminate the Director.  For Comey, an experienced investigator and prosecutor, smelling the smoke was getting too near the fire.

At first the White House said that it was over Comey’s “unprofessional” handling of the Clinton email investigation, but this, as everything else emanating from this White House, proved laughable and made no sense.  For it was just such handling of the Clinton affair coming as it did at crucial points in the campaign that gave tRUMP the presidency.  But, like everything else in this White House, whatever the official line tRUMP would be seen either on “twitter” or on television giving lie the administration’s story; in this case openly admitting within 48 hours in a nationally televised interview that he had intended to fire Comey regardless of Department of Justice recommendations and then rambled on about how fake the Russian story was.  Shortly thereafter, so as do drive ever deeper the impression that he is in the Russian bag, he entertained the Russian Ambassador and Russian press in the Oval Office itself telling the assembled that he had fired Comey so as to put the Russian Scandal behind him.   Here, in short, are at least two open admissions of firing the FBI director so as to impede or end an investigation.  Here, in short, are admissions of obstructing justice.  Here is our very own Caesar Disgustus openly admitting that he has committed an impeachable offense. 

Impeach and Imprison.