The Breakfast Club (Pete Endorses Bernie. Wins JFK Profiles in Courage Award)

Welcome to The Breakfast Club! We’re a disorganized group of rebel lefties who hang out and chat if and when we’re not too hungover we’ve been bailed out we’re not too exhausted from last night’s (CENSORED) the caffeine kicks in. Join us every weekday morning at 9am (ET) and weekend morning at 10:30am (ET) to talk about current news and our boring lives and to make fun of LaEscapee! If we are ever running late, it’s PhilJD’s fault.

 photo 807561379_e6771a7c8e_zps7668d00e.jpg

AP’s Today in History for December 8th

America enters World War Two; Former Beatle John Lennon is shot to death in New York.

Breakfast Tune Imagine – John Lennon – Banjo Cover

Something to think about, Breakfast News & Blogs below

 

Bernie Sanders
By Peter Buttigieg
St. Joseph’s High School
South Bend, Indiana
Winning the 2000 Profiles in Courage essay contest, sponsored by the John F. Kennedy Presidential Library Foundation
H/T JekyllnHyde at Caucus99percent

In this new century, there are a daunting number of important issues which are to be confronted if we are to progress as a nation. Each must be addressed thoroughly and energetically. But in order to accomplish the collective goals of our society, we must first address how we deal with issues. We must re-examine the psychological and political climate of American politics. As it stands, our future is at risk due to a troubling tendency towards cynicism among voters and elected officials. The successful resolution of every issue before us depends on the fundamental question of public integrity.

A new attitude has swept American politics. Candidates have discovered that is easier to be elected by not offending anyone rather than by impressing the voters. Politicians are rushing for the center, careful not to stick their necks out on issues. Most Democrats shy away from the word “liberal” like a horrid accusation. Republican presidential hopeful George W. Bush uses the centrist rhetoric of “compassionate conservatism” while Pat Buchanan, once considered a mainstream Republican, has been driven off the ideological edge of the G.O.P. Just as film producers shoot different endings and let test audiences select the most pleasing, some candidates run “test platforms” through sample groups to see which is most likely to win before they speak out on major issue. This disturbing trend reveals cynicism, a double-sided problem, which is perhaps, the greatest threat to the continued success of the American political system.

Cynical candidates have developed an ability to outgrow their convictions in order to win power. Cynical citizens have given up on the election process, going to the polls at one of the lowest rates in the democratic world. Such an atmosphere inevitably distances our society from its leadership and is thus a fundamental threat to the principles of democracy. It also calls into question what motivates a run for office – in many cases, apparently, only the desire to occupy it. Fortunately for the political process, there remain a number of committed individuals who are steadfast enough in their beliefs to run for office to benefit their fellow Americans. Such people are willing to eschew political and personal comfort and convenience because they believe they can make a difference. One outstanding and inspiring example of such integrity is the country’s only Independent Congressman, Vermont’s Bernie Sanders.

Sanders’ courage is evident in the first word he uses to describe himself: “Socialist”. In a country where Communism is still the dirtiest of ideological dirty words, in a climate where even liberalism is considered radical, and Socialism is immediately and perhaps willfully confused with Communism, a politician dares to call himself a socialist? He does indeed. Here is someone who has “looked into his own soul” and expressed an ideology, the endorsement of which, in today’s political atmosphere, is analogous to a self-inflicted gunshot wound. Even though he has lived through a time in which an admitted socialist could not act in a film, let alone hold a Congressional seat, Sanders is not afraid to be candid about his political persuasion.

After numerous political defeats in his traditionally Republican state, Sanders won the office of mayor of Burlington by ten votes. A successful and popular mayor, he went on to win Vermont’s one Congressional seat in 1990. Since then, he has taken many courageous and politically risky stands on issues facing the nation. He has come under fire from various conservative religious groups because of his support for same-sex marriages. His stance on gun control led to NRA-organized media campaigns against him. Sanders has also shown creativity in organizing drug-shopping trips to Canada for senior citizens to call attention to inflated drug prices in the United States.

While impressive, Sanders’ candor does not itself represent political courage. The nation is teeming with outspoken radicals in one form or another. Most are sooner called crazy than courageous. It is the second half of Sanders’ political role that puts the first half into perspective: he is a powerful force for conciliation and bipartisanship on Capitol Hill. In Profiles in Courage, John F. Kennedy wrote that “we should not be too hasty in condemning all compromise as bad morals. For politics and legislation are not matters for inflexible principles or unattainable ideals.” It may seem strange that someone so steadfast in his principles has a reputation as a peacemaker between divided forces in Washington, but this is what makes Sanders truly remarkable. He represents President Kennedy’s ideal of “compromises of issues, not of principles.”

Sanders has used his unique position as the lone Independent Congressman to help Democrats and Republicans force hearings on the internal structure of the International Monetary Fund, which he sees as excessively powerful and unaccountable. He also succeeded in quietly persuading reluctant Republicans and President Clinton to ban the import of products made by under-age workers. Sanders drew some criticism from the far left when he chose to grudgingly endorse President Clinton’s bids for election and re-election as President. Sanders explained that while he disagreed with many of Clinton’s centrist policies, he felt that he was the best option for America’s working class.

Sanders’ positions on many difficult issues are commendable, but his real impact has been as a reaction to the cynical climate which threatens the effectiveness of the democratic system. His energy, candor, conviction, and ability to bring people together stand against the current of opportunism, moral compromise, and partisanship which runs rampant on the American political scene. He and few others like him have the power to restore principle and leadership in Congress and to win back the faith of a voting public weary and wary of political opportunism. Above all, I commend Bernie Sanders for giving me an answer to those who say American young people see politics as a cesspool of corruption, beyond redemption. I have heard that no sensible young person today would want to give his or her life to public service. I can personally assure you this is untrue.

 

 

Something to think about over coffee prozac

 
New SEAL trident will depict eagle taking selfie with corpse
  Continue reading

Pondering the Pundits: Sunday Preview Edition

Pondering the Pundits: Sunday Preview Edition” is an Open Thread. It is a selection of editorials and opinions from around the news medium and the internet blogs. The intent is to provide a forum for your reactions and opinions, not just to the opinions presented, but to what ever you find important.

On Sunday mornings we present a preview of the guests on the morning talk shows so you can choose which ones to watch or some do something more worth your time on a Sunday morning.

Follow us on Twitter @StarsHollowGzt

The Sunday Talking Heads:

This Week with George Stephanopolis: The guests on Sunday’s “This Week” are: Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ); House Judiciary Committee members Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA); and Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL).

The roundtable guests are: Former Gov. Chris Christie (R-NJ); former Mayor Rahm Emanuel (D?); Democracy for America CEO Yvette Simpson; and Republican strategist Alice Stewart.

Face the Nation: Host Margaret Brennan’s guests are: Intelligence Committee Chair Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA); House Minority Leader Rep. Mark Meadows (R-NC); and former Acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal.

Her panel guests are: Josh Holmes, Republican Commentator; Julie Pace, The Associated Press; Adam Entous, The New Yorker; and Ed O’Keefe, CBS News Political Correspondent.

Meet the Press with Chuck Todd: The guests on this week’s “MTP” are: House Judiciary Committee chair Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY); Sen Ted Cruz (R-TX); and Rep. Denny Heck (R-WA).

The panel guests are: Robert Costa, Washington Post; Jen Psaki, Democratic strategist; former Rep. Carlos Curbelo (R-FL); Stephanie Cutter, Democratic strategist; and Kristen Welker, NBC News White House reporter.

State of the Union with Jake Tapper: Mr. Tapper’s guests are: House Judiciary Committee chair Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY); and House Minority Leader Rep. Mark Meadows (R-NC).

His panel guests are: Rep. Joe Neguse (D-CO); Jen Psaki, Democratic strategist; Linda Chavez, conservative commentator; and David Urban, Trumpster.

The Overland Campaign

Ever want to know how we defeated tne Rebellion for Slavery?

It is said that after Pickett’s Charge Robert E. Lee was never again able to gain Battlefield Initiative. That’s not strictly true and what does it mean anyway?

Well, it means being able to force your opponent to respond to your actions. How futile did it get? In the last great counter attack at Richmond Abraham Lincoln was actually visiting the Front. He, and the reporters around him, didn’t notice a thing.

An often overlooked fact about Lee is that he owed a large part of his success to his willingness to accept the Butcher’s Bill. Casualties in the Army of Northern Virginia shot through the roof after he replaced Johnston. He was a reckless commander whos reputation was inflated by his counterpart, George McClellan, who was a good Quartermaster.

Ahem.

Not that Quartermasters can’t be good Generals, Nathaniel Greene, but this wasn’t at all like that. Troops loved him because they knew he would go easy on them. They loved Lee because he won.

That all changed with the arrival of the Beast from the West, Grant, who had just as much disregard for the lives of his soldiers as Lee did, but he had more of them.

Some people think it was Grant v. Lee at Gettysburg (nope, Meade) and that from a hot horrible crossroads in Pennsylvania a stream of unending victory ensued. Not so much. But Grant clearly had a better understanding of his objective than most. It was to destroy the Army of Northern Virginia.

Relentless.

The relevance to modern politics is that the Left should have a clear idea of it’s objectives. Capturing Richmond is nice but Napoleon captured Moscow and got slaughtered because it was useless. Carthago delanda est.

War, Hmm, Good God! What is it good for?

Absolutely nothing. Let’s say it again.

I hesitate to claim the mantle of those oppressed by visible characteristics, skin color, sex, stuff like that, though I am a member of one of the most despised and smallest minorities on the planet.

I’m an atheist.

I’m kind of in the closet, I pass, I’m not in your face all the time about how I think you’re a moron even though I do. I’m not there on the front lines fighting for Atheist Rights (whatever those would be, I’m mostly content to be ignored and if I feel the need for media representation of people like me I can identify with I can always catch a re-run of Big Bang Theory) and were I quizzed I’d say something meaningless like “I’m Buddhist.” which isn’t an answer at all really, just a description of your fitness routine.

Still I find the insistence of others, most very poor examples of the faith they pretend to espouse, particularly grating during my SAD period and I apologize in advance if I seem more sympathetic to “Bah. Humbug.” than “Bless us, everyone.”

Oh, and while I don’t shun gifts I find myself after Cyber Monday shorn of immediate desires. Don’t send me fruit cake, I’ll only use it to line the bunker; consider instead your own needs and those of others in your life.

Weekend Cartnoon

Too funny not to see.

My African-American

Dude, Emancipation Proclaimation was 1863. Ok, so it only covered States currently in Rebellion for Slavery. Owning a Slave in Maryland or Hartford was fine.

14th was 1868. One would certainly have hoped after 151 years that the concept of “owning” other people would at least be unfashionable, alas it persists in other forms which is why I’m in favor of the Equal Rights Amendment.

I’m not against Social Justice. I think without Economic Justice it’s kind of hollow and meaningless.

The Breakfast Club (Two Problems)

Welcome to The Breakfast Club! We’re a disorganized group of rebel lefties who hang out and chat if and when we’re not too hungover we’ve been bailed out we’re not too exhausted from last night’s (CENSORED) the caffeine kicks in. Join us every weekday morning at 9am (ET) and weekend morning at 10:00am (ET) (or whenever we get around to it) to talk about current news and our boring lives and to make fun of LaEscapee! If we are ever running late, it’s PhilJD’s fault.

 photo stress free zone_zps7hlsflkj.jpg

This Day in History

On this date in 1941, Japanese forces attack the home base of the U.S. Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbor in Hawaii – prompting America under President Franklin D. Roosevelt to enter World War II.

Breakfast Tunes

Something to Think about over Coffee Prozac

There are two problems for our species’ survival – nuclear war and environmental catastrophe – and we’re hurtling towards them. Knowingly.

Noam Chomsky

Continue reading

Seven Characters, Two Words

I think we all saw this coming.

Oh, the title. Crossword fans will need no additional hints though there are no ‘Es’ and ‘U’ appears twice. TMC prefers I use Family Friendly language, at least above the fold and since I rarely write below I can’t work as blue as my instincts would initially lead me. It’s ok, I find such constraints creative challenges, like doing it backwards in high heels. I write poetry too.

I’m not sure what led The Daily News to choose ‘Drop Dead’ for their headline, it certainly wasn’t probity or good taste.

And ‘Drop Dead’ is 8 letters and has an ‘E’.

Pondering the Pundits

Pondering the Pundits” is an Open Thread. It is a selection of editorials and opinions from> around the news medium and the internet blogs. The intent is to provide a forum for your reactions and opinions, not just to the opinions presented, but to what ever you find important.

Thanks to ek hornbeck, click on the link and you can access all the past “Pondering the Pundits”.

Follow us on Twitter @StarsHollowGzt

Neal Katyal and Sam Koppelman: The transcript Trump released is still the only evidence needed to impeach him

Don’t get distracted by procedural details or new revelations.

President Trump is a master of distraction — and with impeachment, his strategy of deflection, obfuscation and diversion is in full force. Wednesday’s hearings in the House Judiciary Committee were no exception. Trump’s allies focused on an offhand comment about the president’s son, which had nothing to do with the case. And Trump’s opponents have become so caught up in questions surrounding the process of impeachment (Will former White House counsel Donald McGahn testify? Will White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney? What robe will the chief justice wear to the Senate trial?) that many have lost sight of the big picture: The president of the United States tried to cheat in the 2020 election, and used his awesome powers as commander in chief to ask a foreign government to help him do so.

This is the very crime of which our founders were most afraid; it’s the paradigmatic impeachable offense, the one impeachment was included in our Constitution to protect against; and we already have all of the evidence we need to prove it. In fact, we’ve had the goods since Sept. 24, when Trump released an edited transcript which he has claimed is “perfect” and “beautiful,” even though it’s perfectly and beautifully impeachable.

Instead of becoming bogged down in the House Intelligence Committee’s 300-page report, which basically no Americans will read in its entirety, Democrats should focus in on that five-page transcript. Because if every American knew what was said in that conversation, and understood its implications, there’s no doubt Trump would be impeached.

Lawrence H. Tribe: Democrats are debating a dangerous false choice on impeachment

As the House of Representatives moves toward formulating articles of impeachment, it is vital that the options on the table not be misframed. It’s a dangerously false choice to think that the House Judiciary Committee must either adopt a broad, kitchen-sink approach or take a narrow, laser-focused perspective.

Yes, narrow is better than broad for the purposes of focus and public understanding. But narrow mustn’t mean myopic. What makes President Trump uniquely dangerous is not that he has committed a single terrible act that meets the Constitution’s definition of an impeachable offense. Neither Russia-gate nor Ukraine-gate was a one-night stand, and the obstruction of justice that enabled Trump to get away with asking for and benefiting from Russia’s intervention in the 2016 election is of a piece with his defiance of congressional investigations that might enable him to get away with demanding Ukraine’s intervention in 2020.

The impeachment and removal of this president is necessary because Trump has been revealed as a serial abuser of power, whose pattern of behavior — and “pattern” is the key word, as Rep. Mary Gay Scanlon (D-Pa.) and House Judiciary Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) emphasized during Wednesday’s hearing — makes clear he will repeat the same sequence again and again.

Eugene Robinson: Trump is impeaching himself

President Trump apparently thought he could bluff and bluster his way out of being impeached, but he was wrong. His place of dishonor in history is now all but assured.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s announcement that the House will move forward with articles of impeachment was inevitable, and Trump has no one to blame but himself. No one forced him to try to strong-arm a foreign government into helping his bid for reelection. No one forced him to abuse the power of the presidency for personal gain. No one forced him to obstruct efforts by Congress to investigate his misdeeds.

Someone will force him to be held accountable, however. “Don’t mess with me,” a steely-eyed Pelosi warned a provocative reporter Thursday. Trump should have learned that lesson by now. [..]

“Our democracy is what is at stake,” Pelosi said Thursday. “The president leaves us no choice but to act, because he is trying to corrupt, once again, the election for his own benefit.”

Impeachment is something “which I wish the president had not made necessary,” Pelosi said. And she’s right. Trump is impeaching himself.

Paul Krugman: Why Is Trump a Tariff Man?

It’s all about the power — and the cronyism.

Almost exactly one year has passed since Donald Trump declared, “I am a Tariff Man.” Uncharacteristically, he was telling the truth.

At this point I’ve lost count of how many times markets have rallied in the belief that Trump was winding down his trade war, only to face announcements that a much-anticipated deal wasn’t happening or that tariffs were being slapped on a new set of products or countries. Over the past week it happened again: Markets bet on an outbreak of trade peace between the U.S. and China, only to get body slammed by Trump’s declaration that there might be no deal before the election and by his new tariffs on Brazil and Argentina.

So Trump really is a Tariff Man. But why? After all, the results of his trade war have been consistently bad, both economically and politically.

I’ll offer an answer shortly. First, however, let’s talk about what the Trump trade war has actually accomplished.

William Saletan: It’s Not About Corruption. It’s About Revenge.

The GOP’s new explanation of why Trump extorted Ukraine.

Why did President Donald Trump—against the wishes of his State Department, his Defense Department, and his congressional allies—withhold military aid and a White House meeting from Volodymyr Zelensky, the president of Ukraine? For weeks, Republicans said the reason was corruption. Trump cared deeply about fighting corruption, they explained, and he blocked the aid until he was sure that Zelensky would clean up Ukraine.

Unfortunately, that explanation doesn’t fit any of the facts. So Republicans have developed an alternative theory: Trump blocked the meeting and the aid because he thought Ukraine was out to get him. He did it for revenge.

The revenge theory starts with a May 23 meeting at the White House. A delegation of Trump appointees and a Republican senator, Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, had just returned from Ukraine. They told Trump that Zelensky, who had just been inaugurated, was launching an unprecedented campaign against corruption. If Trump had cared about corruption, the delegation’s report would have moved him. It didn’t. He fixated instead on the idea that Ukraine was out to get him.

No Statute of Limitations: Torture

There is no statute of limitations on torture, not only for those who commit the crime but for those who condone, cover it up of refuse to prosecute it. It is illegal under International and US Law. The US is required under law to prosecute torture. President George W. Bush condoned it and covered it up, as did his predecessor. Donald J. Trump thinks it should be legal

Torture has once again reared its ugly head with the release of drawings from a prisoner at the Guantánamo Bay US detention camp in Cuba. The pictures are stark and graphic and, as the New York Times Editorial says, they should be viewed only by adults but we should not look away.

 

The sketches should be seen only by adults, but they must be seen. Drawn by a victim of torture, they show, in raw and agonizing detail, the methods that Americans — soldiers, psychologists, spies, women and men — have devised to break down prisoners through pain, panic, brainwashing and other barbaric and illegal tools.

There is nothing in the crude drawings by Abu Zubaydah, a prisoner captured in 2002 and still held by the United States in the Guantánamo Bay detention camp, that hasn’t been described before in the various official and unofficial investigations into the moral travesty that was the C.I.A.’s program of “enhanced interrogation,” one of the more devious euphemisms ever devised. We’ve read of the waterboarding and sleep deprivation and humiliation and all the other horrors, and of the lasting effect they had, often on innocent men.

But as with the infamous photographs of prisoner abuse at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, the images strip away the euphemisms, justifications, lies and legalisms. They are published in a study titled “How America Tortures” by one of his lawyers and the lawyer’s students. Mr. Zubaydah was the first of the captives after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, to be subjected to prolonged torture, and he holds the dubious distinction of having been waterboarded 83 times. Many of the C.I.A. tortures were devised for him and first tested on him by psychologists whose previous job had been to train American soldiers who might one day be tortured. He provided interrogators with considerable information — but that was to F.B.I. agents who questioned him before he was turned over to the C.I.A. for torture.

The drawings speak for themselves. They are in a Times article and the report by Mark P. Denbeaux, a professor at the Seton Hall University School of Law and a lawyer for several Guantánamo detainees, including Mr. Zubaydah. What is important not to forget is the deeply shameful and disturbing fact that the United States, admittedly at a moment of national confusion and panic following the 9/11 attacks, but unnecessarily, secretly and extensively, adopted barbaric practices banned by domestic and international law.

 

The current director of the C.I.A., Gina Haspel, was a leading participant in the program and helped the agency destroy more than 90 videotapes of a brutal interrogation. But she, at least, has vowed not to restart the torture program, even if ordered to by the president. Whether that amounts to a realigned moral compass is an open question, but it is important to know that the agency that developed and applied “enhanced interrogation” has renounced it.

No such enlightenment for President Trump. On the contrary, the commander in chief has ordered Guantánamo to be kept open and to “load it up with some bad dudes.” He has insisted that “torture works” and that he’d bring back waterboarding “and I’d bring back a hell of a lot worse than waterboarding.” These are outrageous sentiments calling for blatantly unlawful action by the intelligence and security services of the United States.

For Mr. Trump and those who think like him, torture is not only a technique for extracting information, which it doesn’t do very well, but also a form of revenge. “If it doesn’t work, they deserve it anyway,” he has said, “for what they’re doing to us.”

This same thinking was evident in his recent pardons granted to military commanders convicted of war crimes. True warriors have a code of behavior that proclaims acts of savagery against unarmed civilians or prisoners to be dishonorable and immoral. Their code distinguishes between killing on the battlefield and murder, which the president and his cheerleaders seem not to understand. “We train our boys to be killing machines, then prosecute them when they kill!” he tweeted in October, displaying total and insulting ignorance of the honorable calling of a soldier.

 

The United States has by far the greatest security establishment on earth, with the greatest reach. When the United States commits or abets war crimes, it erodes the honor, effectiveness and value of that force. The pictures of how America tortures illustrate what happens next.

Mark Denbeaux, attorney for Abu Zubaydah, talks with MSNBC host Rachel Maddow about the failures of the U.S. torture program designed specifically for Zubaydah and the lack of accountability for how so many false conclusions were drawn.
 


 
This is us, the Unites States of America.

Cartnoon

Bah, Humbug. Happy ek’smas

The Breakfast Club (Revolutionary Class)

Welcome to The Breakfast Club! We’re a disorganized group of rebel lefties who hang out and chat if and when we’re not too hungover we’ve been bailed out we’re not too exhausted from last night’s (CENSORED) the caffeine kicks in. Join us every weekday morning at 9am (ET) and weekend morning at 10:00am (ET) (or whenever we get around to it) to talk about current news and our boring lives and to make fun of LaEscapee! If we are ever running late, it’s PhilJD’s fault.

 photo stress free zone_zps7hlsflkj.jpg

This Day in History

Jefferson Davis dies in New Orleans; Four people die at a free Rolling Stones concert at the Altamont Speedway in Livermore, California; America’s first attempt to put a satellite into orbit fails; Jazz pianist Dave Brubeck is born.

Breakfast Tunes

Something to Think about over Coffee Prozac

To make an omelette, you need not only those broken eggs but someone ‘oppressed’ to beat them: every revolutionist is presumed to understand that, and also every woman, which either does or does not make 51 percent of the population of the United States a potentially revolutionary class.

Joan Didion

Continue reading

Ships and Rats

Republicans have a notable lack of empathy, an inability to imagine an existence different from their personal experience. Metaphor is lost on them, they just don’t get it.

The reason a Rat leaves a Sinking Ship is not some mystical supernatural sense of impending Doom. It’s because the normal areas they inhabit are too flooded for them to breathe anymore.

This from The Hill, hardly a bastion of “liberal” propoganda-

Fox’s Napolitano predicts Trump will testify on own behalf at Senate trial
By Joe Concha, The Hill
12/05/19

Fox News senior judicial analyst Andrew Napolitano on Thursday predicted that President Trump will testify on behalf of himself at an impeachment trial in the Senate, saying it would be “the most dramatic legal political event” in modern history.

“If you go to a Senate trial, who testifies on behalf of the president?” Fox News anchor Bill Hemmer asked Napolitano on the network’s “America’s Newsroom.”

“Himself,” Napolitano quickly responded.

“You believe that could happen?” Hemmer pressed.

“I do,” replied Napolitano, a former New Jersey Superior Court judge. “I think it will be the most dramatic legal political event in the history of our era.”

“With the president of the United States testifying under oath in front of the chief justice, and the full Senate and 200 million people watching on television.”

Napolitano has said on several occasions in recent weeks that he believes the president should be impeached based on evidence laid out as part of the House inquiry, which is examining Trump’s efforts this year to get Ukraine to launch politically charged investigations.

In a recent interview with Reason.com, Napolitano said he believes there could be “three or four articles of impeachment” against Trump, including bribery, high crimes and misdemeanors and obstruction of justice.

“The Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee have unearthed enough evidence, in my opinion, to justify about three or four articles of impeachment against the president,” he told Reason’s Nick Gillespie.

“One is bribery. The allegation is the technical definition of bribery is the failure to perform an official duty until a thing of value comes your way,” continued Napolitano. “And they will argue that the president’s failure to disperse funds that the Congress ordered, they dispersed until the recipient of the funds agreed to investigate a potential political opponent is an act of bribery. That is enough, in my opinion, to make it over the threshold of impeachable offenses. I don’t think it’s enough to convict of bribery, but it’s enough to allege it for the purpose of impeachment.”

“The second charge will be high crimes and misdemeanors, election law violation,” he added. “The third crime will be obstruction of justice. The fourth will be interference with a witness, and the fifth may be lying under oath.”

Do I think this will actually happen? Probably not, but it would be great television.

Load more