Trump, the GOP, and a pair of political wishes for 2024

No matter how you view it, politically, 2023 was grim.

Most days brought head-shaking news from the GOP. 

From in-House GOP bickering to the House expulsion of George Santos to lining up a fact-free impeachment of the Democratic president to, stunningly, presenting as their BEST CHOICE to run for president in 2024, an ethically-bereft, twice-impeached insurrectionist facing 91 felony charges in four different courts, who has promised, if elected, to obtain the apparently Confederate-inspired goal of "retribution."

Amazingly (and, truly, terrifyingly so), 2024 doesn't look as though it might be any better.

But our country needs it.

That said, here are my two political wishes for the new year.

First off (and less important than my second wish), I hope the House GOP gets it together. 

They took fifteen votes to elect a Speaker and then ousted him. GOP members physically and verbally assaulted one another. They scrutinized Biden's bank records attempting to prove that a documented loan repayment from his brother and car payments from his son are really evidence of impeachable offenses. And they continued to bend over backwards to appease the demagogue that is the head of the GOP: twice-impeached, four-time-indicted, former president Donald J. Trump.

And it's been done to the detriment of legislating--neglecting pressing needs such as gun control and immigration to pass an historically few number of bills.

I understand that GOP functionality is an enormous ask, though. Hopefully, there will arise a few (or at least one or two?) principled GOP lawmakers to take a stand for what's right. 

The country needs it.

But, sadly, I wouldn't count on it.

My far more fervent wish, and an even bigger ask, I'm afraid, pertains to the upcoming trials of the GOP presidential frontrunner.

Although my hope is that justice will be served, my wish is much more than that.

Juries of my fellow citizens--and their court officers--will hear evidence to determine Trump's guilt or innocence.

Obviously, they'll have to put aside preconceived biases to reach just verdicts.

But it won't be that easy. 

They'll also have to navigate their fear for the physical safety of themselves and their families if they decide to render a guilty verdict--something even U.S. Senators couldn't overcome during Trump's second impeachment, despite recognizing his guilt.

The same fear and threats of violence likely experienced by the District Attorney of Fulton County, GA, or the Washington insurrection trial judge, or the DA's office in New York, or the four Colorado Supreme Court members that found Trump should be removed from the primary ballot (notably, those Colorado Justices voting in favor of Trump WEREN'T threatened by Biden supporters).

So, my wish is that the juries will be able to render fair judgements. And that the threats made by the gullible, evil minions of Trump's army will not be able to thwart such decisions. And that those brave souls serving the country in the U.S. Courts will remain safe.

Our country needs it.

God bless America.

Of COURSE, there's US racism

Someone told me they believed the balance of power between white Americans and Black Americans has evened out since the 1960’s. After all, laws have been passed to reduce discrimination, right? There's more crime in Black-populated communities! And, for goodness sakes, we even elected a Black man to the presidency!  So, how in the world is it that anyone believes that Black Americans are still oppressed?

Simple (or maybe, more accurately, not so simple): a system’s balance of power doesn’t even out in a lifetime.

Or even many lifetimes.

And that power structure started with the first vile act of oppression.

A brief history:

Africans were ripped from their lives and enslaved (as, too, were Indigenous Americans, which is a topic for another day). Then, despite centuries of dehumanization and abuse—and with, because of the abhorrent system, little to no opportunity for education, community, or financial gain--their descendants persevered. The traitorous Confederacy (proclaiming Blacks were inferior and should be enslaved) lost, finally bringing those in enslavement the most basic of human rights, freedom.

But freedom isn’t equality.

Suddenly, there were 12% more free people in the US, Americans who, within the system, had no homes, no finances, and little education. The vast majority were relegated to living in poverty. The “system” didn’t help. Governments codified discrimination via Black Codes and Jim Crow laws, which—especially when combined with persisting attitudes and perceptions—denied educational, housing, voting, and job opportunities to Black Americans (who, because of skin color, were easily singled out). By the time of the Civil Rights push in the 1960s, Black Americans had already endured generations of inequality in the system which generally led to less opportunity for things such as education and financial gain (note: the wealth gap between Black Americans and white Americans continues to increase). Laws designed to reduce disparity and discrimination were passed, but racist and discriminatory attitudes persisted. And they still do. Generations of such policies and treatment that limit opportunity often lead to poverty, which, studies show, is a very difficult inheritance to overcome.

It's true that a higher percentage of people in poverty commit more crime than those not in poverty—regardless of ethnicity—often due to the psychological effects of hopelessness and desperation. Desperate, hopeless people sometimes also turn to drugs, which fuels their own criminal actions as well as that of a community’s drug trade and influence.

Sometimes, crime, instead, is a reaction to a perception of systemic inequality in things such as law enforcement and justice (such as in the summer of infrequently violent protests in reaction to the police murder of George Floyd in Minneapolis).

And the system reinforces that perception. Those with less education—which correlates directly with poverty—receive longer jail sentences for the same crimes than those with more, likewise as do Black Americans compared to white Americans.

Even not-in-poverty Senator Tim Scott has discussed his experiences with systemic racism, including discriminatory judgments towards him from Capitol police or times (as an elected official) he was stopped for “nothing more than driving a new car in the wrong neighborhood, or some other reason just as trivial.”

Regarding Obama’s election, which some say proves there is no racism in America, studies show his mere presence in the White House actually increased polarization along racial lines (he lost the white American vote by 12 points in 2008 and 20 points in 2012). In 2016, Clinton’s position as a champion for racial equality swung even more such voters to Trump.

Obviously, systemic racism is still here.  And despite what some politicians and their followers insist, Black Americans aren’t the ones pulling the strings. Ingrained societal perceptions and long-time “norms” set up and perpetuated by the white American majority are doing that. Similar patterns are found in the histories of traditionally oppressed people throughout the world.

And personal racism is here, too. In 2020, for example, the FBI noted a 40% increase in hate crimes toward Black Americans. Black Americans are still the number one target of hate crimes.

So, whether or not someone chooses to believe that racism towards Black Americans—in policies and attitudes—exists in the United States, research and history prove that, so horribly, it does.

The GOP goes "fact-free"

House Republicans have gone "fact-free."

The House GOP tries
its new "fact-free" diet

After more than a year of investigations into their fanciful allegations of Joe Biden malfeasance, they have formalized an impeachment inquiry of President Biden--only the sixth one in the history of our country--without the slightest evidence of any "high crimes or misdemeanors" that are required for an actual impeachment. 

Instead, they've uncovered evidence of a loan repayment from Biden's brother, and about $4000 in payments connected to his son Hunter's truck.

They've heard witnesses, under oath, declare they didn't think the President ever had anything to do with the financial business dealings of his son.

They've had their own members, such as earlier Senate Biden investigator co-chair Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, say there's no "hard proof" connecting Joe to any wrongdoing (Democratic Rep. Jamie Raskin of Maryland gave a thorough and scathing response to earlier GOP accusations here).

It's not the same as a previous formal inquiry when Trump was first investigated/impeached for (documented) withholding of Congressionally-approved aid to Ukraine, asking a foreign government for the "favor" of campaign assistance through announcing an investigation into his chief political opponent.

It's not even like when Bill Clinton was investigated/impeached for lying under oath about having an affair with a staffer.

Nope.

To be accurate, no evidence is required to launch an impeachment inquiry.

But it highlights some important GOP priorities--not for the country, but for itself.

Inmate #P01135809

It deflects the actual malfeasance (and two impeachments and 91 felony indictments and liability for sexual assault and defamation and business fraud) of the GOP's frontrunner (unbelievably so) for its 2024 presidential run, Donald Trump. 

And it should take their members' minds off pesky issues such as supporting allies around the world or funding the government before its January default date or having discussions about gun laws or immigration reform. 

So, a GOP-led House--that removed its own Speaker (for the first time in history) and expelled one of its own members (only previously done five times ever)--has now formalized an impeachment inquiry for only the sixth time in the history of our nation.

And this one is fact-free.

Stephen Colbert's take:

Throw Hunter From the Train

Is Hunter Biden being railroaded (with an assist from the GOP) for his tax crimes?

After all, evidence apparently points to his guilt of cheating the US of 1-2 million dollars in taxes.

The GOP's impeachment train
 is ramping up to leave the station

So, prosecution would be expected, with or without GOP pressure, right?

Not so fast.

Biden's attorney, says charges would not have been brought "if Hunter's last name was anything but Biden." 

To be honest, that's pretty hard to argue against.

Let's just look at numbers. In 2019, for example, 148,000,000 individuals filed tax returns. That same year, the IRS recommended tax crime prosecution for just 942 people, primarily for unpaid tens of millions or schemes to bilk other people (and Biden's was neither).

Even so, 942 people?

That's a "whopping" .0006%.

Point zero, zero, zero, six percent.

What are the odds?

Actually, you're ten times more likely than that to get hit by lightning.

A Vanderbilt University tax expert says in an AP article that "the average American has almost as good a chance of winning the lottery as being criminally prosecuted for tax fraud."

But, alas, Hunter Biden is not an "average" American (and he certainly is not winning the lottery). Instead, he's the son of a sitting US President for whom the GOP has a passion to bring down, in an attempt, it appears, as revenge for criminal indictments against their favorite despot, former President Trump. 

Make no mistake, though, this isn't a "witch hunt." There appears to be evidence of criminal activity (just as in Trump's indictments). However, the threat of 17 years of incarceration is unbelievable. Penalties for such tax crime convictions--such as in the cases of Willie Nelson and Nicolas Cage--are most often settled through payment of back taxes and penalties. 

But, um, Biden's already done that.

So, what about the DOJ plea deal with Biden that was reached this past summer?

Um, it was denied by a Trump-appointed judge, coincidentally(?) after the GOP raised a stench about Biden's "sweetheart" deal (although the deal seemed pretty consistent with others in his position). And, following the GOP hue and cry, the DOJ miraculously came up with additional charges without having even gathered more evidence.

So, is Hunter Biden being railroaded (with an assist from the GOP) for his tax crimes?

All a-BOARD!!

Here's a great take by former DOJ Deputy Assistant Attorney General Harry Litman (LA Times):

Litman: Hunter Biden isn't being accused of any new wrongdoing. So why was he just indicted again? (yahoo.com)

Is the GOP even for real?

The latest GOP news reads like it's from the satirical "Onion" (or this site's "None-yun")

"The Onion" certainly can't top the GOP

Florida Senator Rick Scott is clamoring for investigations of college football because his Florida State was excluded from the four-team playoff (a discussion of the reasoning can be found here).

So, as GOP Congressional members duck discussions of gun control in the wake of continual mass shootings, push off decisions about funding the federal government, virtually shut down any legislation, hurry to catch up from their own Tommy Tuberville refusing military promotions, threaten/perform violence in the Capitol,  and create fantastical stories of millions of bribery dollars being funneled to Joe Biden (in the guise of two loan paybacks and $5000 in car payments for his son) to fuel a, literally, incredible impeachment effort...

...they want to investigate why Rick Scott's favorite team wasn't picked to play in a college football game?

It's GOTTA be a joke...right?

UPDATE: Rick Scott's #5 ranked Florida State was throttled by number 6 Georgia in the Orange Bowl, 63-3, the "biggest blowout in bowl game history."

There was no further comment from Senator Scott.

George Santos and Even More Terrifying Things

The recent House expulsion of NY GOP US Representative George Santos highlights three disturbing things: Santos's lies and alleged crimes, the trashing of the presumption of innocence, and the immense hypocrisy of the GOP, which continues to back its own indictment-laden leader, of which the last is the most terrifying.

First the good news: Santos is now free to pursue his other interests.

Perhaps he could investigate his "Jew-ish" heritage (including his OJ Simpson-style promise to prove that his Brazilian-born grandparents fled Hitler) or the "kidnapping" of his niece by Chinese Communists (law enforcement, which found no evidence, said, "I'd lean into, 'he made it up.'").

He could parlay into a new career his volleyball stardom from Baruch College or maybe a promotion at Goldman-Sachs.

He could go back to fundraising (he seems to have a soft spot for veterans and their sick dogs).

He could even explore his penchant for alternate identities (whether that of his donors or that of Anthony Devolder or Kitara Ravache).

As vile (and, in some cases, incredibly sadly comical) as Santos's alleged actions are, they pale in comparison to two others.

The first is the expulsion itself. Virtually all of the Democrats and nearly half the Republicans voted to expel Santos. It's disturbing that he hasn't been convicted of a crime. Our country prides itself on the belief that we are innocent until proven guilty. The US House of Representatives apparently no longer believes that. 

(It's notable that the US Senate hasn't expelled its own alleged king of corruption, New Jersey's Democratic Senator Bob Menendez, who is currently facing conspiracy and bribery charges--federal charges he also faced under different circumstances back in 2015--before he's tried in court)

With the Santos expulsion--only the sixth ever in the House, and ostensibly for accused crimes--the US House has thrown under the bus the presumption of innocence (although any decent politician would have likely resigned if they were in Santos's position). Although an ethics committee report was damning, the crimes are still only alleged, and no member of the House has been expelled without a conviction (of the previous five, three had fought for the Confederacy, and two were convicted of federal crimes). 

Despite the lies and alleged criminal actions of George Santos, we should all be disturbed that a precedent has been set for the country that doesn't bother to wait for the determination of the courts. And such a precedent can be the start of a slippery slope for the presumption of innocence.

But it gets worse.

Of the 220 GOP members in the House, 105 GOP members (48%) voted to expel Santos, not because he was a serial liar, but because of his alleged crimes. The House Committee of Ethics found that the NY Congressman “placed his desire for private gain above his duty to uphold the Constitution, federal law, and ethical principles.”

Which brings us to this: amazingly, most of these 105 GOP members who voted to oust a man accused of 23 felonies and who "placed his desire for private gain above his duty to uphold the Constitution, federal law, and ethical principles," ardently support for the US Presidency a serial liar, a man facing 91 felonies--backed by a thorough House investigation with virtually all GOP witnesses, as well as accusations and evidence laid out in his four indictments--a man who has pledged retribution, a man who has greenlighted using the DOJ for revenge, a man who has discussed invoking the Insurrection Act, and a man who wanted to seize voting machines (Maryland Democratic Representative Jamie Raskin called them out here).

Despite this ousting, in supporting Trump's continuing candidacy, these GOP members also quixotically back a man who, in fact, “placed his desire for private gain above his duty to uphold the Constitution, federal law, and ethical principles.”

And that is more terrifying than anything George Santos could have ever dreamed up.

House Expulsion Factoid: The previous last member of the US House of Representatives (of now only 6) to be expelled, in 2002, was Ohio's Democrat Jim Traficant, whose charges included racketeering and bribery.

Just before the expulsion, he said, "I'll go to jail before I resign and admit to something I didn't do."

Traficant served seven years in federal prison.

Speaking of Expulsions: The House didn't even expel Kentucky's William Graves after he killed Maine's Representative Jonathan Cilley in a duel using rifles, in 1838.