Another Debate Coming

Think they will ask about this?

Nahhhh, it will be the spat between Sanders and Warren.

Meanwhile, the world literally burns.

Will It Matter?

Some rumblings that we might get witnesses at the Senate trial.

Two caveats: New witnesses? Or just the ones who already testified in the House?

And: What difference will it make anyway?  I'm VERY skeptical John Bolton is going to add anything substantive to the discourse.

But...If they call witnesses and the White House stonewalls them...how can you vote to acquit on obstruction charges?

Lying Liars And Their Lies

As we try and come to grips with the assassination of Qasem Soleimani, we are trapped by two circumstances.  It is in the nature of intelligence services to be secretive. They don't wish to divulge ANYTHING, though in a democracy, they grudgingly concede they must. So any information about why we killed him was bound to be incomplete.

The greater tension is that this administration lies so routinely and so shamelessly that it's impossible to believe anything that comes from the White House apparatus.  They are no more reliable than "Baghdad Bob" was.

You can't just assassinate people. You can take preemptive measures in the face of imminent harm. But Trump clearly just wanted to kill an important Iranian and then make up a reason afterwards. There is no evidence Soleimani was an imminent threat. Or rather, maybe there is, but intelligence sources can't divulge it publicly.  Of course, they don't seem to be able to divulge it privately either.

The crisis of credibility in American foreign relations is a big problem. Will it be repaired by removing Trump?

The Plan

Pelosi looks to be sending the impeachment articles to the Senate next week.  There is no shortage of advice for her as to how to proceed.  Pelosi never acts without thinking several steps ahead, so there must be a reason to send the articles now.  Perhaps Susan Collins has grown a spine. 

Stop laughing.

No, stop it.

OK, so it's unlikely Senate Republicans will do their constitutional duty.  It is unlikely that John Bolton will come in and save the day.  It's unlikely that Democrats will be able to introduce new evidence in the Senate at all.

Instead, they seem to be banking on tying the entire GOP to Trump's crimes, then wait as more and more crimes trickle out.  It's not a terrible strategy, since the only way to remove Trump from office is the election (or a massive KFC-fueled coronary).

Still, "impeachment" was never going to be as satisfying for Democrats as it was upsetting to the malignant narcissist-in-chief. 

Strange Times

A few days ago, Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) came out of the Intelligence briefing on Soleimani's assassination furious at the lack of thought and care in the briefing or the rationale for the strike on a foreign military leader.

Yesterday, Matt Gaetz - of all people - voted for the resolution binding Trump's ability to use military force against Iran.  Gaetz's reasoning (I can't believe I'm writing these words about Gaetz) is rock solid. Congress has a constitutionally mandated role to play in the use of military force and they should not abandon this incredible power to the whims of ANY president.  But we don't have ANY president.  We have Trump.  This makes Congress's attempt to rein in his impulsivity even more critical.

It also means that you cannot - under ANY circumstances - break with Hair Furor. Keep an eye on Gaetz over the weekend. He's got the most ironclad Trumpist bona fides of anyone.  Will that give him cover for his vote? I have my doubts.  The GOP continues to spiral into authoritarianism.  Mike Lee walked back some of his criticism of the briefing ("I wasn't criticizing the President."), and I'm guessing Gaetz will crumble soon.

Thou shalt not break with the whims of Dear Leader.

Well, Actually...

In 2002, Republicans smeared Max Cleland - who lost three limbs in Vietnam - of coddling terrorists, because he didn't want to go to war in Iraq.  Today, that legacy lives on in Georgia.  I don't know how much that will resonate beyond the Fox News crowd, but there it is.

It's worth pushing back on the argument that Soleimani was a terrorist.  He wasn't.  He was a soldier, targeting soldiers (at least as far as taking on the US is concerned).  He did support terrorist groups who tended to attack US diplomatic targets, but there is some evidence he didn't direct those sort of attacks.  There are US servicemen and women who are dead or maimed because he supplied them with weaponry.  He was our enemy on the field of battle.  But he was more like Rommel than bin Laden.  Allowing Republicans to cast anyone who opposes us in the Middle East as a terrorist allows them to cast every conflict there through the lens of 9/11.  It's worked for about two decades and it needs to stop.

By Dawn's Early Light

Last night's chaotic events are still coming in to focus.  Initially, it looks like the following is true: Iran launched missiles from Iran into US bases in Iraq, without killing US troops.  Meanwhile, it what might be an ungodly coincidence, a Ukrainian airline fell out of the sky near Tehran. Of course it had to be Ukrainian. 

Operating on the assumption that the US was not responsible for the downed Ukrainian airliner and that there are no US deaths, then we are likely looking at Iran trying to nudge the US out of Iraq.  That's been their strategic goal for years now. If these attacks are designed to push Trump out - starting from the perspective that Trump really doesn't want another Mideast war - then not killing Americans would've been the goal.  I don't know how accurate Iranian missiles are, but this recalls when the US launched a bunch of cruise missiles at Syria to no real effect.  The strike was significant, not the damage.  Iran may also have wanted to change the topic after 50+ people were crushed to death at Soleimani's funeral.

If that was their intent, I wouldn't expect that they are done.  Iran is patient, and they will hit us again when it our guard is down, in ways that will be harder to trace.  For now this is still not World War III.

Bolton

John Bolton said he would abide by a Senate subpoena. Why did he say that?

Most likely he said it in the same way I might say that I won't quit my teaching job to pitch for the Braves. He's making a commitment that will never be tested.  The Senate does not seem remotely ready to call witnesses. Bolton pointedly did NOT say he would abide by a House subpoena.  It would be interesting if the House did, in fact, subpoena him in the next couple of days.  My guess? He doesn't show.

Presumably, Bolton's statement puts some pressure on Senate "moderates" who might buck McConnell and write rules for the "fair trial" scenario. Here's a credible, central witness who should be heard, unless your desire is to sweep this under the rug.  However, who are these "moderates"? Mitt Romney will vote for the "fair trial." I could maybe see Mike Lee follow his lead, given how uniquely unpopular Trump is in Utah.

After that?

We can already write off Susan Collins.  She's the most worthless invertebrate in Congress.  Murkowski is more of a possibility, but I'm not holding my breath.  For the others, maybe a retiring Senator like Lamar Alexander or Johnny Isakson might support it, but there is equally no incentive for doing the right thing.  People like Joni Ernst, Cory Gardner or Martha McSally - who are running for re-election this year - are in a tight spot. Support the "fair trial" and you lose MAGAt support. Oppose it, and you lose independents. 

So, Bolton's offer to testify in a Senate trial is likely him trying to distance himself from the historical reckoning that is coming without jeopardizing his future in Republican politics.

It means nothing.

This Could Be Huge

Lev Parnas is the linchpin in exposing Trump's various crimes in Ukraine and possibly Russia. He was "in the room" for all sorts of bad actions that included Rudy Giuliani.

His documents will be turned over to Adam Schiff this week.

No wonder the GOP wants to expedite Trump's acquittal.  The problem is, the quicker the sham trial, the worse they look when more rank criminality is exposed.

The Drunken Tough Guy At The End of the Bar

Jon Chait notes how Donald Trump's foreign policy can basically be reduced to whatever the drunken bully at the end of the bar might rant while watching Fox News.  It's the erosion of American moral authority - to the degree that existed - and being replaced with whatever the muttering asshole who couldn't find Iran on a map thinks we should do to "prove we're tough."

Did Trump Commit A War Crime?

There's a lot of debate about the legal significance of Trump's decision to assassinate the head of Iran's Qud Force. In a broad sense, it is very difficult to convict the President of war crimes, simply because Congress, the Constitution and the public have largely ceded military matters to the executive branch. There have been various Congressional measures that allow the President to strike at "terrorists" associated with 9/11, but Soleimani was hardly involved with Al Qaeda (in fact, he was a nominal ally against Al Qaeda and ISIL). There was also the authorization to use force to topple Saddam Hussein, and Soleimani was obviously in Iraq when he was killed. Add in the assault on the US embassy in Baghdad that Soleimani was likely involved with somehow, and you can stretch a justification for killing him.  Almost certainly after the fact.

If this reporting is accurate, Trump was given some responses and Soleimani was thrown in there as a the "absurd option." Basically, it's like offering your toddler dinner options of spaghetti or rusty razor blades. The idea is that they will pick the spaghetti. After the embassy attacks, Trump went for the rusty razor blades and they had to scramble to come up with a legal rationale.  History has certainly shown that the rationale can be as thin as paper, but it will still work to shield the president on international and military affairs. 

The days of mourning for Soleimani are coming to an end, and I'm sure Iran is looking at options. If they were smart, they'd target Trump properties all over the world.  They could even phone in bomb scares and clear the buildings before they blow them up. No (or few) casualties, but it would drive Trump insane watching the Trump Towers in Rio or Trump Tower Punta Esta burn and crumble on TV.  Iran wouldn't even have to target the US properly to make their point.

Trump acted impulsively, because...duh.  But Iran has the ability to strike in myriad ways that we are likely not expecting.  Because Trump had Soleimani killed and claimed it was legal, Iran can make the same claims.  In twenty years, maybe the World Court will issue a sternly worded ruling. In the meantime, the legality or illegality of Trump's actions a tertiary to how Iran responds and how we respond to their response.

My Iran Hot Take

Since everyone is wondering about Iran, I might as well weigh in.

Iranian leadership is not stupid.  They do not want a full scale war with the US, as it would devastate Iran. But they are also facing massive unrest over economic hardships (caused mostly, but not exclusively by US sanctions). They will want to respond in a way that leads to less than escalation to full scale war, but clearly demonstrates their resolve to their own people.  If Trump responds by bombing an Iranian city...that works OK for the regime, as martyrs are incredibly important to Shia theology.

My guess is that they will hit back in two ways.  First, they will hit some soft targets to make everyone feel unsafe. Maybe cyber attacks.  Maybe a suicide bombing near a US embassy.

Secondly, they will likely hit a US ally in the region, most likely Saudi Arabia.  If they were to knock out Saudi oil capacity, it would send oil prices skyrocketing around the world and cause some of the same economic pain that Iranians are suffering through right now.

I think the only thing that leads us to a direct out-and-out war with Iran is miscalculation. I truly don't think Trump wants a war.  I know the Iranians don't.  But both sides are erratic and untrustworthy in their decision making.  If we go to war, it will be because we blundered into one.  Which is completely possible, given what we know about decision making in Trump's White House.

Pelosi Holds All The Cards

When it comes to the trial in the Senate, every day that goes by increases the pressure to allow a real trial. As Martin Longman explains, when every day seems to bring some new revelation, the following options appear to McConnell:

1) Allow the House Managers to call the witnesses that stonewalled the impeachment hearings in the House and risk a steady erosion in support for the President.

2) Stop them from calling witnesses, acquit the President and then watch as revelation after revelation makes them look like criminal co-conspirators.

My Hopes For 2020

- Better than 2016, and perhaps even better than 2018.
- Better health for everyone I know.
- That everyone take a deep breath, unplug and realize that - once you abandon the negative cesspool of social media - there is true beauty and goodness in the world.  Things really do work out more often than not.
- A championship for an Atlanta sports team.
- My sons get rewarded when they deserve to be. Regardless, they learn and grow from their endeavors.
- That money not be a worry, but a tool.
- That this time next year, we can all look back on 2020 and smile more than we frown.

The Party Of Grievance

Jon Chait examines GOP climate realists who prioritize "pwning the libs" over, you know, saving the planet.

The GOP used to call themselves "the party of idea" and while most of the Reagan Era ideas were horrible, they at least were worthy of being called ideas. What the GOP is now is essentially a loosely aggregated bunch of angry white people who are defined not by what they want but who they hate. If you accept the climate science, there is literally no earthly reason why you would not want to act on it.

The GOP must be broken in its current form.  It's toxic to the ability to govern this country.