New Days?

THE ABSURD TIMES

 

 

 

 

 Above: Artist's perception of Trump leaving office after he failed the coup attempt. – Latuff

 

I thought this would be the least believed, least accepted, most boring, and most accurate article of the entire series. You see, it has to do with facts and a bit of elementary mathematics.  Let me start with a very counter-intuitive mathematical fact in this essay, just to give an example.  First, keep in mind that I am talking about a truly RANDOM sample, the biggest flaw in the process as no survey is truly random. Given that, the larger the population you are trying to generalize on accurately, the smaller the sample size needed. A smaller population, requires a great number of samples in order to achieve the same degree of accuracy.

 

Now, that is remarkedly absurd and preposterous, I grant you. Since I heard it twice, I then went through the process of trying to either prove or disprove such a ridiculous idea. Well, the idea is true. I've gone though the same damn mathematics again and I'm not about to do it one more time! It's true, and that's that. Another nugget of information that might be of value to you is that if you are anyayzing surveys or any statistical process, always take into account previous surverys of the same thing.

 

But that is not the point here. The point here is what seems to motivate so much animosity these days, I mean always, I think, is race. So let's look at it from a DNA and percentage angle. The first item is the fact that we differ from Chimpanzees by one percent. To put it another way, only one percent of our DNA seperates us from Chimps. So, already, 99% of our entire existence is exactly the same as the chimps. In some cases, I'm tempted to think that certain individuals are more like chimps than that 1%, but I'm not judging.

 

Now, the chance of anyone's DNA "matching" anyone elses (except an identical twin) is 1 in about 7 billion (or is it million or trillion? I don't remember). The point of all this? With all of these numbers, why is race such an issue with anyone except for political reasons? When I first saw Kamela Harris, I had absolutely no idea that she considered herself "black," or that anyone else did. The whole concept is puzzling to me.

 

More puzzling is the fact that those who are "white supremacists" Are also fundamentalist "christians". Somehow, that admits a belief in evolution and such changes take much more that 6,000 years and seem more related to climate than anything else. Still, the first sentence is probably an error. Anyhow, time to let that go as otherwise it would never finish.

 

****

So now, a few observations on other matters, just for the hell of it.

 

Did anyone else notice that Trump attempted the forcible overthrow of the Government? I thought it was illegal even to advcate that. In fact, I thought of a few times when such action would be in order, but I never did advocate it. I would merely point out, much as I am doing here, that the people, Trump followers all, attempted such an action and Trump himself, along with his "Attorney Rudy", called for such an activity. 

 

There are some other issues that perhaps someone could help out with. According to the Constitution (yes, I read it), the President has the power of the pardon except in impeachment. Well, that's not exactly an accurate quote, you can check it yourself, but my question is does that mean relevant to his impeachment or while he is being impeached, or after he is impeached, or what? People still talk as if he can still pardon anyone. What I read seems a bit open to interpretation. I'm sure there is a great deal of secondary material on that.

 

In addition, if he self-pardons, and a pardon is an admission of guilt as SCOTUS decided, is he still convicted, or did he confess? "Not guilty" is out of the question. Does it mean that he gets out of prosecution for his tax fraud? Any ideas?

 

Hey, I know I've got a lot of questions and I'm not giving any answers. Well, when I give answers, nobody accepts them anyway, so why bother. I have more questions anyway. So, onward!

 

It does seem as though shutting down his Twitter account has prevented further mass riots, but is that the real reason he sulks so much? Or is the reason that Ivanka told him she just wanted to be friends from now on? Anybody have any idea if she is Jewish now?

 

There are also rumors that he has ordered that Guiliani not be paid his $20,000/day salary.  It seems perfectly consistant with his past business practices, but there is also the question of whether Derschowitz will be defending him at the Senate trial. My own sense of this is that Derschowitz will require payment in advance (judging from his general behavior), but is this all bull as has been the course in the last few years, or rather, during Donald's entire life and Rudy's own view of things. Anybody have any definitive informatin on this?

 

Would Josh Hawley and Ted Cruz, as well as Lindsey Graham be censured? Certainly their behavior has been less than idea, and they are not as insane as Trump. By the way, that is a good new figure of speech: insane as Trump.

 

What would be in the traditional letter of advice one president leaves for a successor? Advice: ask yourself one question: what's in it for me?

The question remains: no one heard him explictly heard him order the attack on the capital.  Now, his ex-attorney, Cohen, pointed out that Trump indirectly gives such orders. I was reminded of Henry II of England in the 1100s who wanted Thomas Beckett removed and said "Will no one rid me of this meddlesome priest?" Well, several of his devoted nobels rode all the way to Canturbury and killed Thomas Beckett." Well, did Henry order his killing or not? Well, the Pope decided he did and tht was that. [There was no Clarance Darrow in the 1100s in England.]  Shakespeare thought so as well, so that's that.

 

*****************

 

 

Well, that's it for now.

 

 

 

 

 

The Scum Also Rises (rev.)

THE ABSURD TIMES

THE SCUM ALSO RISES

BY

CZAR DONIC

(Oscar Levant, for our President.)

He at least knew he was schizophrenic.

Also was a poet, writing "Roses are Red, Violets are Blue, I'm schizophrenic, and so am I."

If you do see some of his films, notice his direction as finally the camera opens with the wide shot and then the focus on the fingers. Since most concertos, except for the MacDowell, begin with the easier chords, this is not surprising. In his films, you can actually see him working on the more challenging passages.

At the end of this file, we have a few more contemporary photos or illustrations.

A few weeks ago, I tuned in to TCM, a cable channel started by Ted Turner, a corolful person in himself. It features, uncut and commercial free, older movies, classics, and often will gather them around such topics as directors, actors, even cinematographers. This time, they were featuring Oscar Levant, a fascinating subject. I thought I knew a great deal about him, but I learned a few things that were new to me. The show came at a good time as it presaged that last election in Britain and was during the time of Trump, two preposterous "rulers" that had reminded me of a remark of Oscar's.

Levant was what was then called "manic-depressive," but retained his sharp wit until the end. The quote I remembered was after he left treatment for severe depression, saying "I was kicked out for depressing the other patients." Particularly apt these days.

I also remembered he held the record for an album ranked number one for over a year, his classical recording of Gershwin's Rhapsody in Blue. I learned, however, that he also had one called the Concerto in F, also by Gershwin, and in addition an even more enduring Prano Concerto #1, by Tsychowski. (I believe there was one more such recording, but I've forgotten what it was by now.) The point is, he was such a popular and outspoken critic, that one forgets that at the time he was ranked above Horowitz and others as the greatest pianist of the time. (To dispel argument, I'll add "one of" to that.) I have also heard his Pavanne for a Dead Princess in an album titled some "Some Tolerable Moments in the 20^th Century," or something like that, and it is an excellent rendition. But his live remarks were soon to obscure all that.

First, he wrote two books, A Smattering of Ignorance and Memoirs of an Amnesiac. The first was number one on the Times best seller list. The second is depressing, even to me. That'll give you an idea.  I learned that there is a third one out there somewhere.

In all of his movies (he never played a leading role, of course), he was given free reign to ad-lib all of his line as they were better that any writer could ever have come up with. So far as I can remember, all of his recordings were in the 40s, his television appearances until the very early 60s. The House of Un-American Activities Committee once contemplated investigating him as a "Communist," but found out that he was thrown out of a couple of their meetings for wisecracks. He would have not made a good target at all. In fact, the hearings would have likely been laughed out of existence if they had called him and he showed up to testify.

I can imagine some of the testimony:

"Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the Communist party?"

"No, they didn't like me and I would not care to be a member of any group that would have me in it."

"Now Mr Levant, are you taking this situation as seriously as it deserves?"

"I think there is little doubt about that."

I simply can not imagine this without slipping into my mind twisting into warped spasms of laughter.

Would he have? Think of it this way. One of the most respected and tyrannical conductors ever to live, and certainly at the time, was Arturo Toscanni. He would break sticks during rehersals out of rage. One day he was especially terrifying while Oscar Levant was doing rehersal with his orchestra. Oscar became so weary of it he said to him "If you don't behave, I'm gonna follow your beat."

If Toscanni could not impress him, McCarthy certainly would not have. QED.

TODAY

I had thought that the title would suffice for the topic and the brief biography of Levant would be a good introduction. The truth, however, is that I find it impossible after that to take today seriously.

Now we see the progress we have made as a civilization. Donald Trump tweeted about 126 times is less than 24 hours as and after the House of Representatives voted for 2 Articles of impeachment. He is to become the only President to be impeached in his first term, a record like to stand for another 240 years, perhaps more if we managed, as we show all signs of doing, to eliminate humans from the earth as a result of an unlivable climate.

Cyberbullying

Never really understood it, but then kids get consequences in school as a result of peers? Maybe. Meanwhile, Melania Trump (yes, she is his wife) became upset when a Lar Professor said "Donald can not make his son a Baron, although he can give him that name," or words close to that. Then Donald attacked a 16 year old girl and told he to "chill". Seems she had people talking about the climate and, probably the greatest sine of all, go named PERSON OF THE YEAR, instead of him. Melania said nothing at first, but Greta said she was dealing with the anger management problem by chilling and watching a movie with a friend. About the same time, a Judge fined Donald 2 million for stealing from his own charity to pay debts on "deal" that went bad and to have a fake cover of Time made to list him as MAN OF THE YEAR. I'm told the three oldes kids of Trump also have to attend some lecture on not stealing from children, but this may not be the fact, but then again, what is a fact these days?

In other words, Donald has already lost the Twitter war to her and citing her Asperger's as a reaqson to make him more heinous is superfluous. It seems to make her superior.

McConnell, who has stifled over 2,000 bipartisan bills has announced that her is already coordinating with the WH counsel. In other words, a jurist, perhaps the foreman, is coordinating the the defense council. The Judge in the Senate trial will be Roberts, once considered a Republican (a previous version of Republican, B.T. – before Trump), will be the judge. We have much to be sick about.

All Senators will take an oath to evaluate the evidence fairly. At least more than half will lie. This is called perjury, although Senate Rules make them immune to prosecution. Otherwise, nothing would ever get done, even with honest people.

Much of Trump's unhappiness stems from this cover from Time magazine:

A judge fined his 2 million dollars for stealing from his own charity. Some of the somen was to buy a fake "Person of the Year" magazine cover featuring, of course, himself. Nobody was impressed in the first place.

Another teenager tried to help:

However, another teenager did this for him. At least he did not have to alter the hands.

Impeaching

THE ABSURD TIMES

[Ed. Note:  It is clear that recently readers overseas have lost as much interest in the idiocies of this administration as the management.  Our readership is about the same overall, but international interest has declined significantly.  This come as no surprise, but it will soon be rectified.  Our attention will soon focus on subjects of more interest and importance to all concerned, even though the international spread of nationalism and consequently Neo-Fascism has spread world-wide.  We will have more to say in these issues in coming publications.  Art.]

I don't want to see her again, but here is an example of a double standard.

Impeaching the Right Way

(A Perfect Article)

by

Czar Donic

Despite all the discussion on impeachment, it is important to go over it once more and know what we are getting in to. 

It helps to know the line of succession.  After Trump is gone, comes Mike Pence, mentioned below as a Christian Fascist (pretty close).  After him, Nancy Pelosi and I could live with that.  Next comes Chuck Grassley.  After that, Mike Pompeo.  Obviously, the next election will be very important.

If we count all of Trump's achievements, perhaps the most interesting is the Supreme Court nominee.  He at least had a defense for his poor behavior both towards women and in making judicial opinions: "I like beer."  It does explain a great deal.  Nothing else has made any sense at all.  Donald of Orange, I understand, just recently used Twitter to announce he wanted a "moot" along the Mexican border filled with snakes and alligators.  Where do we get such a moot?

Now, what is so important about impeachment?  Even if he is impeached, it would take 2/3rds of the Senate to get rid of the guy and then we would have Pence sitting there.  The only justification for impeachment is that these Representatives took an oath and to impeach would require it to be fulfilled.  Additionally, on this last vacation or recess, they are finding that most of their constituencies support or accept their decision, especially in heavily Republican districts.  They really have no real ethical choice.  Here is a discussion of what it means:

* * *

House Democrats subpoenaed President Trump's personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani Monday, seeking documents related to his work in Ukraine. Last week, Guliani admitted on television that he had urged the Ukrainian government to investigate Trump's political rival and 2020 Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden. This comes as House Democrats continue to build their case for impeaching the president, following a whistleblower complaint focused on a phone call in which Trump asked the Ukranian president to do him a "favor" investigating the actions of Democrats, including Joe Biden and his son Hunter. Meanwhile, Trump is continuing to threaten lawmakers who are pushing impeachment, and publicly admitted he is trying to find out the identity of the anonymous whistleblower, in possible violation of whistleblower protection laws. We host a debate on impeachment with John Bonifaz, co-founder and president of Free Speech for People, one of the organizations demanding Trump's impeachment, and Chris Hedges, Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, award-winning author and activist.

---

Transcript

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: We begin today's show with the growing impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump. House Democrats subpoenaed Trump's personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani on Monday, seeking documents related to his work in the Ukraine. Last week, Giuliani admitted on television that he had urged the Ukrainian government to investigate Trump's political rival Joe Biden.

This comes as House Democrats continue to build their case for impeaching the president, following a whistleblower complaint filed by an intelligence officer who was detailed to work at the White House at one point. The whistleblower complaint focused on a phone call in which Trump asked the Ukrainian president to do him a, quote, "favor" by investigating the actions of Democrats, including Joe Biden and his son Hunter. On Monday, The Wall Street Journal revealed that Secretary of State Mike Pompeo was among the administration officials who were on the controversial July 25th phone call.

Meanwhile, evidence is growing that the Trump administration also pressured other nations, including Australia and Italy, to take steps to help Trump politically. The New York Times reports Trump personally pressed Australia's prime Minister to help Attorney General William Barr with his review of the origins of the Mueller probe. Barr also traveled to Italy last week, where he reportedly pressed Italian officials to help his probe.

AMY GOODMAN: President Trump is continuing to threaten lawmakers pushing impeachment. On Monday, Trump suggested House Intelligence Chair Adam Schiff should be arrested for treason.

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Adam Schiff made up a phony call, and he read it to Congress, and he read it to the people of the United States. And it's a disgrace. This whole thing is a disgrace. There's been tremendous corruption, and we're seeking it. It's called drain the swamp.

AMY GOODMAN: Trump also publicly admitted he's trying to find out the identity of the anonymous whistleblower, in possible violation of whistleblower protection laws.

REPORTER: Mr. President, do you now know who the whistleblower is, sir?

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Well, we're trying to find out about a whistleblower, when you have a whistleblower that reports things that were incorrect.

AMY GOODMAN: In a series of tweets over the weekend, President Trump accused the unnamed whistleblower of spying on the president, promising, quote, "big consequences." He also threatened civil war if impeachment proceedings move forward. 2020 presidential hopeful Senator Kamala Harris tweeted Monday, "Look let's be honest, @realDonaldTrump's Twitter account should be suspended."

Well, for more, we host a debate on impeachment. Joining us here in New York City are two guests. John Bonifaz is an attorney and political activist specializing in constitutional law and voting rights. He's the co-founder and president of Free Speech for People, one of the organizations calling for Trump's impeachment. John Bonifaz is the co-author, with Ron Fein and Ben Clements, of The Constitution Demands It: The Case for the Impeachment of Donald Trump. Chris Hedges is also with us. He's a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, award-winning author and activist, columnist for the news website Truthdig. His latest article is headlined "The Problem with Impeachment." He's written numerous books, including, most recently, America: The Farewell Tour.

We welcome you both to Democracy Now! John Bonifaz, let's begin with you. Why do you feel Donald Trump should be impeached?

JOHN BONIFAZ: Donald Trump is a threat to our republic. He defies the Constitution and the rule of law almost on a daily basis. And really, from the moment he took the oath of office, he's showed this disregard for the Constitution, refusing to divest from his business interests all over the world and directly colliding with the anti-corruption provisions of the Constitution, the foreign and domestic emoluments clauses. But, unfortunately, the impeachable offenses do not stop there. He has been repeatedly abusing his power and abusing the oath of office, and he must face impeachment proceedings.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And yet, the House is currently, in its inquiry, looking basically at one issue, at what happened with the phone call in Ukraine. And, Chris Hedges, you've said that the fatal mistake that Trump made is trying to take down a fellow member of the ruling elite. Could you —

CHRIS HEDGES: Well, it reminds me of the Watergate hearings, where the activities that were carried out by the Nixon White House against the Democratic headquarters in Watergate were directed at the elites. All of those activities had been carried out before, including break-ins into Daniel Ellsberg's psychiatrist's office, against antiwar activists. But it's when those activities were targeted at the elite. And I think that's exactly what we've seen, and that's what's triggered such a reaction, including from Pelosi, who up until now has been very reluctant to carry out impeachment. But what they've done, or what Trump, the Trump White House, has done, is target the favored nominee by the Democratic donor class.

JOHN BONIFAZ: That's not necessarily an argument to not proceed with impeachment proceedings. It's an argument to expand the scope of the impeachment inquiry to cover all of his impeachable — Donald Trump's impeachable offenses, from the obstruction of justice, from giving aid and comfort to white supremacists and neo-Nazis, racist abuses of power, placing children and their families in imprisonment unconstitutionally at the southern border. All of the impeachable offenses need to be covered by these impeachment proceedings, not just the Ukraine scandal.

CHRIS HEDGES: Well, yeah, I agree with that, and I'm not against impeachment. The problem is that — and you use the phrase "rule of law" — from the very moment Trump took office, he was violating the emoluments clause; very clear evidence that he attempted to obstruct justice during the Mueller investigation; inciting violence and racism; using taxes to punish people he considered political opponents, Jeff Bezos, in particular, at Amazon. Yes, it's all there, but what has been disturbing for me is the shredding of the rule of law, the inability on the part of the ruling elites on both sides of the aisle to stand up for the rule of law, until now.

And that gets to the much deeper issue that there are — essentially, we live in a two-tiered legal system, where poverty has been criminalized. We live in a city where Eric Garner was strangled to death by New York City police for allegedly selling loose cigarettes, which he wasn't on the day he was killed — he was, in fact, not doing anything — and then Wall Street, which has essentially rewritten the rules to — and so, my worry about impeachment, which I'm not against impeachment, is that people see it as a panacea. I think many in the Democratic Party, in particular in the liberal class, have personalized our problems in the figure of Donald Trump. And, in fact, the malaise runs much deeper. This is what I spent the last two years doing in my book America: The Farewell Tour. It is the rupturing of what the sociologist Émile Durkheim calls the social bonds — that's where you get the term "anomie" — the disenfranchisement of well over half the country, the inability of them to actualize themselves, and acting out in self-destructive pathologies, whether that's hate groups, the opioid crisis, gambling, sexual sadism, etc.

And so, go ahead with impeachment, but if we don't begin to address the underlying malaise and disenfranchisement and rage — and legitimate rage — on the part of the white working class — however much Trump lies — and, of course, he lies like he breathes — the Clintons also lied, in far more damaging ways to the working class, and, in particular, the white working class, than Donald Trump. And we know from polls that right before the election in 2016, you had 55% of those who said they were voting for Trump, it was because they disliked Hillary Clinton, only 44%. So, Trump was kind of weaponized. You know, he was the middle finger to the establishment. He was weaponized against the man. And if we don't begin to deal with those issues, impeachment itself will rend the fabric of American society further into antagonistic tribes. And we have to acknowledge the fact we are a country awash in weapons, 300 million weapons, you know, mass shootings on the average of one a day. And we almost saw, with Cesar Sayoc, the complete decapitation of the Democratic Party with pipe bombs. That's the territory we're headed towards.

AMY GOODMAN: I wanted to go to Texas Congressmember Al Green. He's the first one to have called for impeachment, several years ago. On Monday, he tweeted, "Mr. President, maliciously attacking a whistleblower and promoting civil unrest to avoid impeachment won't save you. You should have already been impeached for your bigotry, corruption, and disloyalty to our country. #CivilWar2 #ImpeachNow" Democracy Now! spoke to Congressmember Green last week.

REP. AL GREEN: We have a responsibility to the country and to the future. The future is going to be one that will allow a president to assume that there are no guardrails, if we don't act now. We have to demonstrate that Congress will honor the Constitution and that we have principle that we will place above politics, that we will place the people above our political parties. And I think that if we do this, we will consider democracy and not Democrats; we will consider the republic and not Republicans.

AMY GOODMAN: Houston Congressmember Al Green was speaking just after Nancy Pelosi had announced that the impeachment inquiry was going to go forward, something he has called for for several years. But, John Bonifaz, as a lawyer, can you explain? Now they're going after Trump for Ukraine and for pressuring the Ukrainian president to investigate his political rival, Joe Biden, and his son Hunter. How does this expand? I mean, we know the same thing happened with Clinton. It started with Whitewater, but it ended up around his relationship with an intern.

JOHN BONIFAZ: Well, I think we have to first look at why Congress has started these impeachment proceedings. The narrative right now among conventional thinkers is it started because of the explosive evidence that emerged from the Ukraine scandal. But, in fact, that's not really true. For many months, there's been a people's movement building, demanding impeachment proceedings along all the impeachable offenses that this president has already committed. And this was the last straw. This evidence coming from this scandal finally pushed Congress, those who were sitting on the fence, including Speaker Pelosi, to do the right thing and start the impeachment inquiry, which is why we should not let up now with this movement. We need to pressure members of Congress to expand the scope to include the very racist abuses of power Congressman Green has talked about, the emoluments violations, the obstruction of justice and so forth. I don't disagree with Chris that we have a two-tiered judicial system here, but that doesn't mean we don't hold this president accountable for his abuses of power that had begun from the moment he took the oath of office.

AMY GOODMAN: We're going to break and then come back to this discussion. John Bonifaz, attorney and political activist, he is for impeachment, has written a book on it. Chris Hedges, Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, award-winning author and activist, questioning is impeachment the way to go now. This is Democracy Now! We'll be back with them in a minute, and then we'll be joined by the mayor of Newark, Ras Baraka. Stay with us.

[break]

AMY GOODMAN: "You Can Tell the World" by Jessye Norman and the New York Philharmonic. The legendary opera singer died Monday at the age of 74. This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. I'm Amy Goodman, with Juan González.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Well, we're continuing our debate on the impeachment of President Donald Trump with John Bonifaz, attorney and political activist, and Chris Hedges, Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, award-winning author and activist. Chris, I wanted to ask you if we could go a little deeper into what's going on here. You mentioned this whole issue of the potential for even deeper conflict in the United States. But I want to ask you, as someone who has studied these systems at length over many years: Are we reaching the point where capitalist democracy has reached its limits? We're seeing, in many countries around the world, total paralysis of governments, in Britain. Peru, the president just recently suspended the national assembly; the assembly is refusing to listen to his orders. And here in the United States, we're seeing a virtual paralysis of our government as a result of this response to an authoritarian dictator. Is it the reality that democracy, given the huge polarization of wealth, has reached its limits in what it can accomplish?

CHRIS HEDGES: Well, I think democracy has been destroyed by global capitalism, that we have the facade of democracy. Lobbyists write our rules. The Supreme Court inverts constitutional rights. The whole idea that unlimited corporate cash is defined by our Supreme Court as the right to petition the government or a form of free speech is an inversion of constitutional rights. The fact that we are the most spied-upon, watched, monitored population in human history — and I covered the Stasi state in East Germany. And I think that that is the far more grave consequence of unfettered or unregulated capitalism, which, as Karl Marx correctly pointed out, is a revolutionary force. So, yes, Juan, I think you hit on a very important point.

And so, the capitalist class, essentially, which has orchestrated this, the largest transference of wealth globally upwards in human history, is determined to beat back even, I would call them, kind of moderate figures, like Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, essentially New Deal Democrats, and they will turn to support demagogues like Trump, like Boris Johnson, Orbán, etc., that we are seeing arise, rather than carry out policies that will ameliorate the vast disparity in power and wealth. And there was just — I was reading The New York Times on the way in here, and they were writing that — there was an article about Elizabeth Warren and how the donor class within the Democratic Party is — which, of course, backs Joe Biden, which gets back to the whole reaction, I think, by the Democratic leadership over this issue of Ukraine — that they've made it very clear that they will swing to Trump rather than support, in particular, Warren or Sanders.

And so, yes, there is a complete breakdown within the democratic institutions that once made piecemeal and incremental reform possible. And this just goes all the way back to Weimar, or when I covered Yugoslavia, that when there is that societal breakdown, the capitalist class, they may find — they do find a figure like Trump vulgar and repugnant, but they will back him as opposed to, I would even call them, political moderates, like Warren or Sanders, who talk about righting the gross inequality in terms of power and in terms of economics that has taken place.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, John Bonifaz, what about this Trump retweeting the statements of this extremist minister, a Pentecostal minister, from Texas that civil war may be possible if people try to impeach Trump? What about this issue that there are people on the right in America that are demonstrably willing to fight to keep Trump in power?

JOHN BONIFAZ: So, first of all, Harvard law professor John Coates responded yesterday to that tweet, saying that's a separate, independent ground now for impeachment proceedings, for the president to retweet that kind of statement and try to incite violence. But we also not be thinking somehow that this president has not already done that kind of incitement of violence. He has. The El Paso shooter cited his rhetoric in regards to that terrible mass shooting.

And this president will continue to engage in destructive behavior and abuses of power, regardless of whether or not we are somehow claiming that he should be held accountable during the election. That's why impeachment needs to move forward, because he's a direct and serious threat to our republic today. And that's why the Framers placed the impeachment power in the Constitution.

The other point I would make here is that we cannot cower to these threats of violence by saying that mob rule gets to rule the day. We have to lift up the Constitution and the promise that no one is above the law, not even the president of the United States.

AMY GOODMAN: So, this impeachment proceeding is moving fast. You have at least the plan of the House Intelligence Committee next week to bring in the former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, who was pushed out, Marie Yovanovitch, and then, on Thursday, Kurt Volker, the former U.S. special envoy to Ukraine, who just quit, and Michael Atkinson, the intelligence inspector general, who will testify on Friday. Then, also on Friday, subpoena deadlines for Mike Pompeo, who's in Italy right now. In October, now this month, Rudy Giuliani also has been subpoenaed. So, the process of how this will work? On Monday, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell told CNBC the Senate would have no choice but to take up Trump's impeachment if the House charges the president.

MAJORITY LEADER MITCH McCONNELL: It's a Senate rule related to impeachment, that would take 67 votes to change, so I would have no choice but to take it up. How long you're on it is a whole different matter. But I would have no choice but to take it up, based on a Senate rule on impeachment.

AMY GOODMAN: So, that's Senator Mitch McConnell, Senate majority leader. What does that look like? I mean, just you've studied the impeachment process. So, it goes from the House to the Senate. What does a trial look like? John Roberts, the chief justice, would preside over it?

JOHN BONIFAZ: Yes, he would preside, and the Senate would need to hear from the House. There would be House managers who present the articles of impeachment with the evidence to the Senate, and the Senate sits as the jury in this instance.

And I think it's significant that Senator McConnell has made this statement, because he, of course, is facing a re-election, or potentially not, in the state of Kentucky. And he knows, he sees where the public is moving on this. We've already seen a huge spike just in the last week in terms of public support for this impeachment inquiry. CBS News had it 55% of the public supporting this. So, senators, both Republican and Democratic, are going to need to cast their vote on this historic question and decide where they stand. And they will face consequences if they do not uphold the Constitution.

AMY GOODMAN: Chris Hedges, I wanted you to respond to New York Congressmember Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who told reporters Friday it would be much worse if Congress doesn't move forward with impeachment proceedings.

REP. ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ: What we're seeing with these developments from Ukraine are extremely serious. And whether — you know, we can't ask ourselves about whether we've moved too slow or too quickly. We have to ask ourselves what we're doing right now. … The president has committed several impeachable offenses, he himself. What he has admitted to is already impeachable, regardless of future developments. What he has already admitted to is an impeachable offense, among others. I anticipate and I believe there will be discussion as to whether, when we draft or when the Judiciary examines the question on filing potential articles of impeachment, what those articles will include. … I think we have to hold this president accountable, and we have to protect our democracy. And I believe that we'll be doing so right now.

AMY GOODMAN: So, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was a major force in pushing House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to conduct an impeachment inquiry.

CHRIS HEDGES: Well, I'm not against impeachment. The problem is impeachment, divorced from confronting the decay and disintegration of our democratic institutions and the vast social inequality that has fed the rage on the part of the white working class, will potentially make things worse. I mean, I think that, yes, we do have to honor — and we should have, two-and-a-half years ago, begun to honor — the rule of law.

But, you know, there are millions of Trump supporters who look at him as primarily a cult figure, who see in his power an extension of their own power, a way to compensate for their own sense of disempowerment. And it's very clear that they will react. They already have attempted to react with violence. Ocasio-Cortez herself has been the recipient of death threats. And this violence against her has been stoked by the president.

And so, my big fear is that somehow people think that impeachment is the panacea. Removing Trump — and, you know, Noam Chomsky, probably correctly, points out that Pence will be worse, because he comes out of the community of Christian fascists. I speak as a seminary graduate. They're heretics. And so, it is very dangerous for those figures who —

AMY GOODMAN: What do you mean, they're heretics?

CHRIS HEDGES: Heretics? Jesus didn't come to drop the — bless the dropping of iron fragmentation bombs across the Middle East or bless the white race above other race or hold up America. I mean, this is heretical. And the failure on the liberal church to call out these people for who they are, and give them religious legitimacy — that's another show — I think, has been perhaps the greatest failing of the liberal church, which I come out of.

And so, our problems are far more severe. Trump is the product. He is what's vomited up from a failed democracy, in the same way that I saw figures like Radovan Karadzic or Slobodan Milosevic vomited up from the failed democracy of Yugoslavia, or you can go back to Weimar Nazis. So, we have to begin to address the fundamental root causes that have created the political crisis and the economic crisis, the social and even cultural crisis that we are in. And if we don't reknit those social bonds, if we don't confront that crisis, impeachment may very well pour gasoline on the growing antagonisms and violence that is besetting this country.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, John Bonifaz, I wanted to ask you, though — if Nancy Pelosi's decision to move forward on an impeachment inquiry on this issue of the phone conversation with the Ukrainian — with Ukraine's president, I feel like I'm in Casablanca: Surprise, there's gambling at this establishment. Right? I mean, isn't the ability of presidents of the United States to pressure foreign leaders to do what they want sort of part of the process of how the United States wields power? Or is it just the situation here that the president did it directly himself rather than have one of his minions exert the pressure?

JOHN BONIFAZ: No, the issue is that he solicited foreign interference to help his election campaign, not that he solicited pressure or forced a country to do something that he claims was for the U.S. foreign policy.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Well, that itself has happened. Didn't the Reagan administration convince Iran to hold back the release of the — I mean, Ronald Reagan's people convinced Iran to hold back the release of the Iranian hostages until the president was inaugurated.

JOHN BONIFAZ: There's no question there's a history of impeachable offenses being committed by other administrations. But I do want to come back to this idea that impeachment is a panacea. No one in the impeachment movement — and this has been a people's movement pressuring for impeachment proceedings. No one is suggesting it's a panacea. What is required is that Congress do its job and hold this president accountable for his abuses of power. But that doesn't mean we can't walk and chew gum at the same time.

Free Speech for People has been around for 10 years. We've been taking on big money in politics and corruption in government, and we will continue to do that in the fight for our democracy. But we did not believe we could be true to that mandate without also taking on the unprecedented corruption of this presidency.

And I do want to add, you know, because this is a people's movement, the pressure needs to continue, and will continue, on Congress to expand the scope of its inquiry beyond the Ukraine scandal. On October 13th, there will be a national day of action called by one of our organizational allies, By the People, for marches all across the country. Already a number of marches have been organized on the eve of Congress returning from its recess. People can find out more about that by going to ByThePpl.us and ImpeachNow.org. But this is why we are where we are today, is because people have demanded this, millions of people all over the country, that Congress do its job and uphold the Constitution.

AMY GOODMAN: Well, of course, we'll continue discussions like these, and I thank you so much for being with us, John Bonifaz, attorney, political activist, co-founder and president of Free Speech for People, one of the organizations calling for Trump's impeachment. John Bonifaz is co-author of The Constitution Demands It: The Case for the Impeachment of Donald Trump. And Chris Hedges, formerly with The New York Times, the Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, award-winning author, activist, columnist for the news website Truthdig. His latest article, "The Problem with Impeachment." He has written numerous books; his last, America: The Farewell Tour.

House Democrats subpoenaed President Trump's personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani Monday, seeking documents related to his work in Ukraine. Last week, Guliani admitted on television that he had urged the Ukrainian government to investigate Trump's political rival and 2020 Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden. This comes as House Democrats continue to build their case for impeaching the president, following a whistleblower complaint focused on a phone call in which Trump asked the Ukranian president to do him a "favor" investigating the actions of Democrats, including Joe Biden and his son Hunter. Meanwhile, Trump is continuing to threaten lawmakers who are pushing impeachment, and publicly admitted he is trying to find out the identity of the anonymous whistleblower, in possible violation of whistleblower protection laws. We host a debate on impeachment with John Bonifaz, co-founder and president of Free Speech for People, one of the organizations demanding Trump's impeachment, and Chris Hedges, Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, award-winning author and activist.

---

Transcript

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: We begin today's show with the growing impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump. House Democrats subpoenaed Trump's personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani on Monday, seeking documents related to his work in the Ukraine. Last week, Giuliani admitted on television that he had urged the Ukrainian government to investigate Trump's political rival Joe Biden.

This comes as House Democrats continue to build their case for impeaching the president, following a whistleblower complaint filed by an intelligence officer who was detailed to work at the White House at one point. The whistleblower complaint focused on a phone call in which Trump asked the Ukrainian president to do him a, quote, "favor" by investigating the actions of Democrats, including Joe Biden and his son Hunter. On Monday, The Wall Street Journal revealed that Secretary of State Mike Pompeo was among the administration officials who were on the controversial July 25th phone call.

Meanwhile, evidence is growing that the Trump administration also pressured other nations, including Australia and Italy, to take steps to help Trump politically. The New York Times reports Trump personally pressed Australia's prime Minister to help Attorney General William Barr with his review of the origins of the Mueller probe. Barr also traveled to Italy last week, where he reportedly pressed Italian officials to help his probe.

AMY GOODMAN: President Trump is continuing to threaten lawmakers pushing impeachment. On Monday, Trump suggested House Intelligence Chair Adam Schiff should be arrested for treason.

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Adam Schiff made up a phony call, and he read it to Congress, and he read it to the people of the United States. And it's a disgrace. This whole thing is a disgrace. There's been tremendous corruption, and we're seeking it. It's called drain the swamp.

AMY GOODMAN: Trump also publicly admitted he's trying to find out the identity of the anonymous whistleblower, in possible violation of whistleblower protection laws.

REPORTER: Mr. President, do you now know who the whistleblower is, sir?

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Well, we're trying to find out about a whistleblower, when you have a whistleblower that reports things that were incorrect.

AMY GOODMAN: In a series of tweets over the weekend, President Trump accused the unnamed whistleblower of spying on the president, promising, quote, "big consequences." He also threatened civil war if impeachment proceedings move forward. 2020 presidential hopeful Senator Kamala Harris tweeted Monday, "Look let's be honest, @realDonaldTrump's Twitter account should be suspended."

Well, for more, we host a debate on impeachment. Joining us here in New York City are two guests. John Bonifaz is an attorney and political activist specializing in constitutional law and voting rights. He's the co-founder and president of Free Speech for People, one of the organizations calling for Trump's impeachment. John Bonifaz is the co-author, with Ron Fein and Ben Clements, of The Constitution Demands It: The Case for the Impeachment of Donald Trump. Chris Hedges is also with us. He's a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, award-winning author and activist, columnist for the news website Truthdig. His latest article is headlined "The Problem with Impeachment." He's written numerous books, including, most recently, America: The Farewell Tour.

We welcome you both to Democracy Now! John Bonifaz, let's begin with you. Why do you feel Donald Trump should be impeached?

JOHN BONIFAZ: Donald Trump is a threat to our republic. He defies the Constitution and the rule of law almost on a daily basis. And really, from the moment he took the oath of office, he's showed this disregard for the Constitution, refusing to divest from his business interests all over the world and directly colliding with the anti-corruption provisions of the Constitution, the foreign and domestic emoluments clauses. But, unfortunately, the impeachable offenses do not stop there. He has been repeatedly abusing his power and abusing the oath of office, and he must face impeachment proceedings.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And yet, the House is currently, in its inquiry, looking basically at one issue, at what happened with the phone call in Ukraine. And, Chris Hedges, you've said that the fatal mistake that Trump made is trying to take down a fellow member of the ruling elite. Could you —

CHRIS HEDGES: Well, it reminds me of the Watergate hearings, where the activities that were carried out by the Nixon White House against the Democratic headquarters in Watergate were directed at the elites. All of those activities had been carried out before, including break-ins into Daniel Ellsberg's psychiatrist's office, against antiwar activists. But it's when those activities were targeted at the elite. And I think that's exactly what we've seen, and that's what's triggered such a reaction, including from Pelosi, who up until now has been very reluctant to carry out impeachment. But what they've done, or what Trump, the Trump White House, has done, is target the favored nominee by the Democratic donor class.

JOHN BONIFAZ: That's not necessarily an argument to not proceed with impeachment proceedings. It's an argument to expand the scope of the impeachment inquiry to cover all of his impeachable — Donald Trump's impeachable offenses, from the obstruction of justice, from giving aid and comfort to white supremacists and neo-Nazis, racist abuses of power, placing children and their families in imprisonment unconstitutionally at the southern border. All of the impeachable offenses need to be covered by these impeachment proceedings, not just the Ukraine scandal.

CHRIS HEDGES: Well, yeah, I agree with that, and I'm not against impeachment. The problem is that — and you use the phrase "rule of law" — from the very moment Trump took office, he was violating the emoluments clause; very clear evidence that he attempted to obstruct justice during the Mueller investigation; inciting violence and racism; using taxes to punish people he considered political opponents, Jeff Bezos, in particular, at Amazon. Yes, it's all there, but what has been disturbing for me is the shredding of the rule of law, the inability on the part of the ruling elites on both sides of the aisle to stand up for the rule of law, until now.

And that gets to the much deeper issue that there are — essentially, we live in a two-tiered legal system, where poverty has been criminalized. We live in a city where Eric Garner was strangled to death by New York City police for allegedly selling loose cigarettes, which he wasn't on the day he was killed — he was, in fact, not doing anything — and then Wall Street, which has essentially rewritten the rules to — and so, my worry about impeachment, which I'm not against impeachment, is that people see it as a panacea. I think many in the Democratic Party, in particular in the liberal class, have personalized our problems in the figure of Donald Trump. And, in fact, the malaise runs much deeper. This is what I spent the last two years doing in my book America: The Farewell Tour. It is the rupturing of what the sociologist Émile Durkheim calls the social bonds — that's where you get the term "anomie" — the disenfranchisement of well over half the country, the inability of them to actualize themselves, and acting out in self-destructive pathologies, whether that's hate groups, the opioid crisis, gambling, sexual sadism, etc.

And so, go ahead with impeachment, but if we don't begin to address the underlying malaise and disenfranchisement and rage — and legitimate rage — on the part of the white working class — however much Trump lies — and, of course, he lies like he breathes — the Clintons also lied, in far more damaging ways to the working class, and, in particular, the white working class, than Donald Trump. And we know from polls that right before the election in 2016, you had 55% of those who said they were voting for Trump, it was because they disliked Hillary Clinton, only 44%. So, Trump was kind of weaponized. You know, he was the middle finger to the establishment. He was weaponized against the man. And if we don't begin to deal with those issues, impeachment itself will rend the fabric of American society further into antagonistic tribes. And we have to acknowledge the fact we are a country awash in weapons, 300 million weapons, you know, mass shootings on the average of one a day. And we almost saw, with Cesar Sayoc, the complete decapitation of the Democratic Party with pipe bombs. That's the territory we're headed towards.

AMY GOODMAN: I wanted to go to Texas Congressmember Al Green. He's the first one to have called for impeachment, several years ago. On Monday, he tweeted, "Mr. President, maliciously attacking a whistleblower and promoting civil unrest to avoid impeachment won't save you. You should have already been impeached for your bigotry, corruption, and disloyalty to our country. #CivilWar2 #ImpeachNow" Democracy Now! spoke to Congressmember Green last week.

REP. AL GREEN: We have a responsibility to the country and to the future. The future is going to be one that will allow a president to assume that there are no guardrails, if we don't act now. We have to demonstrate that Congress will honor the Constitution and that we have principle that we will place above politics, that we will place the people above our political parties. And I think that if we do this, we will consider democracy and not Democrats; we will consider the republic and not Republicans.

AMY GOODMAN: Houston Congressmember Al Green was speaking just after Nancy Pelosi had announced that the impeachment inquiry was going to go forward, something he has called for for several years. But, John Bonifaz, as a lawyer, can you explain? Now they're going after Trump for Ukraine and for pressuring the Ukrainian president to investigate his political rival, Joe Biden, and his son Hunter. How does this expand? I mean, we know the same thing happened with Clinton. It started with Whitewater, but it ended up around his relationship with an intern.

JOHN BONIFAZ: Well, I think we have to first look at why Congress has started these impeachment proceedings. The narrative right now among conventional thinkers is it started because of the explosive evidence that emerged from the Ukraine scandal. But, in fact, that's not really true. For many months, there's been a people's movement building, demanding impeachment proceedings along all the impeachable offenses that this president has already committed. And this was the last straw. This evidence coming from this scandal finally pushed Congress, those who were sitting on the fence, including Speaker Pelosi, to do the right thing and start the impeachment inquiry, which is why we should not let up now with this movement. We need to pressure members of Congress to expand the scope to include the very racist abuses of power Congressman Green has talked about, the emoluments violations, the obstruction of justice and so forth. I don't disagree with Chris that we have a two-tiered judicial system here, but that doesn't mean we don't hold this president accountable for his abuses of power that had begun from the moment he took the oath of office.

AMY GOODMAN: We're going to break and then come back to this discussion. John Bonifaz, attorney and political activist, he is for impeachment, has written a book on it. Chris Hedges, Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, award-winning author and activist, questioning is impeachment the way to go now. This is Democracy Now! We'll be back with them in a minute, and then we'll be joined by the mayor of Newark, Ras Baraka. Stay with us.

[break]

AMY GOODMAN: "You Can Tell the World" by Jessye Norman and the New York Philharmonic. The legendary opera singer died Monday at the age of 74. This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. I'm Amy Goodman, with Juan González.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Well, we're continuing our debate on the impeachment of President Donald Trump with John Bonifaz, attorney and political activist, and Chris Hedges, Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, award-winning author and activist. Chris, I wanted to ask you if we could go a little deeper into what's going on here. You mentioned this whole issue of the potential for even deeper conflict in the United States. But I want to ask you, as someone who has studied these systems at length over many years: Are we reaching the point where capitalist democracy has reached its limits? We're seeing, in many countries around the world, total paralysis of governments, in Britain. Peru, the president just recently suspended the national assembly; the assembly is refusing to listen to his orders. And here in the United States, we're seeing a virtual paralysis of our government as a result of this response to an authoritarian dictator. Is it the reality that democracy, given the huge polarization of wealth, has reached its limits in what it can accomplish?

CHRIS HEDGES: Well, I think democracy has been destroyed by global capitalism, that we have the facade of democracy. Lobbyists write our rules. The Supreme Court inverts constitutional rights. The whole idea that unlimited corporate cash is defined by our Supreme Court as the right to petition the government or a form of free speech is an inversion of constitutional rights. The fact that we are the most spied-upon, watched, monitored population in human history — and I covered the Stasi state in East Germany. And I think that that is the far more grave consequence of unfettered or unregulated capitalism, which, as Karl Marx correctly pointed out, is a revolutionary force. So, yes, Juan, I think you hit on a very important point.

And so, the capitalist class, essentially, which has orchestrated this, the largest transference of wealth globally upwards in human history, is determined to beat back even, I would call them, kind of moderate figures, like Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, essentially New Deal Democrats, and they will turn to support demagogues like Trump, like Boris Johnson, Orbán, etc., that we are seeing arise, rather than carry out policies that will ameliorate the vast disparity in power and wealth. And there was just — I was reading The New York Times on the way in here, and they were writing that — there was an article about Elizabeth Warren and how the donor class within the Democratic Party is — which, of course, backs Joe Biden, which gets back to the whole reaction, I think, by the Democratic leadership over this issue of Ukraine — that they've made it very clear that they will swing to Trump rather than support, in particular, Warren or Sanders.

And so, yes, there is a complete breakdown within the democratic institutions that once made piecemeal and incremental reform possible. And this just goes all the way back to Weimar, or when I covered Yugoslavia, that when there is that societal breakdown, the capitalist class, they may find — they do find a figure like Trump vulgar and repugnant, but they will back him as opposed to, I would even call them, political moderates, like Warren or Sanders, who talk about righting the gross inequality in terms of power and in terms of economics that has taken place.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, John Bonifaz, what about this Trump retweeting the statements of this extremist minister, a Pentecostal minister, from Texas that civil war may be possible if people try to impeach Trump? What about this issue that there are people on the right in America that are demonstrably willing to fight to keep Trump in power?

JOHN BONIFAZ: So, first of all, Harvard law professor John Coates responded yesterday to that tweet, saying that's a separate, independent ground now for impeachment proceedings, for the president to retweet that kind of statement and try to incite violence. But we also not be thinking somehow that this president has not already done that kind of incitement of violence. He has. The El Paso shooter cited his rhetoric in regards to that terrible mass shooting.

And this president will continue to engage in destructive behavior and abuses of power, regardless of whether or not we are somehow claiming that he should be held accountable during the election. That's why impeachment needs to move forward, because he's a direct and serious threat to our republic today. And that's why the Framers placed the impeachment power in the Constitution.

The other point I would make here is that we cannot cower to these threats of violence by saying that mob rule gets to rule the day. We have to lift up the Constitution and the promise that no one is above the law, not even the president of the United States.

AMY GOODMAN: So, this impeachment proceeding is moving fast. You have at least the plan of the House Intelligence Committee next week to bring in the former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, who was pushed out, Marie Yovanovitch, and then, on Thursday, Kurt Volker, the former U.S. special envoy to Ukraine, who just quit, and Michael Atkinson, the intelligence inspector general, who will testify on Friday. Then, also on Friday, subpoena deadlines for Mike Pompeo, who's in Italy right now. In October, now this month, Rudy Giuliani also has been subpoenaed. So, the process of how this will work? On Monday, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell told CNBC the Senate would have no choice but to take up Trump's impeachment if the House charges the president.

MAJORITY LEADER MITCH McCONNELL: It's a Senate rule related to impeachment, that would take 67 votes to change, so I would have no choice but to take it up. How long you're on it is a whole different matter. But I would have no choice but to take it up, based on a Senate rule on impeachment.

AMY GOODMAN: So, that's Senator Mitch McConnell, Senate majority leader. What does that look like? I mean, just you've studied the impeachment process. So, it goes from the House to the Senate. What does a trial look like? John Roberts, the chief justice, would preside over it?

JOHN BONIFAZ: Yes, he would preside, and the Senate would need to hear from the House. There would be House managers who present the articles of impeachment with the evidence to the Senate, and the Senate sits as the jury in this instance.

And I think it's significant that Senator McConnell has made this statement, because he, of course, is facing a re-election, or potentially not, in the state of Kentucky. And he knows, he sees where the public is moving on this. We've already seen a huge spike just in the last week in terms of public support for this impeachment inquiry. CBS News had it 55% of the public supporting this. So, senators, both Republican and Democratic, are going to need to cast their vote on this historic question and decide where they stand. And they will face consequences if they do not uphold the Constitution.

AMY GOODMAN: Chris Hedges, I wanted you to respond to New York Congressmember Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who told reporters Friday it would be much worse if Congress doesn't move forward with impeachment proceedings.

REP. ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ: What we're seeing with these developments from Ukraine are extremely serious. And whether — you know, we can't ask ourselves about whether we've moved too slow or too quickly. We have to ask ourselves what we're doing right now. … The president has committed several impeachable offenses, he himself. What he has admitted to is already impeachable, regardless of future developments. What he has already admitted to is an impeachable offense, among others. I anticipate and I believe there will be discussion as to whether, when we draft or when the Judiciary examines the question on filing potential articles of impeachment, what those articles will include. … I think we have to hold this president accountable, and we have to protect our democracy. And I believe that we'll be doing so right now.

AMY GOODMAN: So, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was a major force in pushing House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to conduct an impeachment inquiry.

CHRIS HEDGES: Well, I'm not against impeachment. The problem is impeachment, divorced from confronting the decay and disintegration of our democratic institutions and the vast social inequality that has fed the rage on the part of the white working class, will potentially make things worse. I mean, I think that, yes, we do have to honor — and we should have, two-and-a-half years ago, begun to honor — the rule of law.

But, you know, there are millions of Trump supporters who look at him as primarily a cult figure, who see in his power an extension of their own power, a way to compensate for their own sense of disempowerment. And it's very clear that they will react. They already have attempted to react with violence. Ocasio-Cortez herself has been the recipient of death threats. And this violence against her has been stoked by the president.

And so, my big fear is that somehow people think that impeachment is the panacea. Removing Trump — and, you know, Noam Chomsky, probably correctly, points out that Pence will be worse, because he comes out of the community of Christian fascists. I speak as a seminary graduate. They're heretics. And so, it is very dangerous for those figures who —

AMY GOODMAN: What do you mean, they're heretics?

CHRIS HEDGES: Heretics? Jesus didn't come to drop the — bless the dropping of iron fragmentation bombs across the Middle East or bless the white race above other race or hold up America. I mean, this is heretical. And the failure on the liberal church to call out these people for who they are, and give them religious legitimacy — that's another show — I think, has been perhaps the greatest failing of the liberal church, which I come out of.

And so, our problems are far more severe. Trump is the product. He is what's vomited up from a failed democracy, in the same way that I saw figures like Radovan Karadzic or Slobodan Milosevic vomited up from the failed democracy of Yugoslavia, or you can go back to Weimar Nazis. So, we have to begin to address the fundamental root causes that have created the political crisis and the economic crisis, the social and even cultural crisis that we are in. And if we don't reknit those social bonds, if we don't confront that crisis, impeachment may very well pour gasoline on the growing antagonisms and violence that is besetting this country.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, John Bonifaz, I wanted to ask you, though — if Nancy Pelosi's decision to move forward on an impeachment inquiry on this issue of the phone conversation with the Ukrainian — with Ukraine's president, I feel like I'm in Casablanca: Surprise, there's gambling at this establishment. Right? I mean, isn't the ability of presidents of the United States to pressure foreign leaders to do what they want sort of part of the process of how the United States wields power? Or is it just the situation here that the president did it directly himself rather than have one of his minions exert the pressure?

JOHN BONIFAZ: No, the issue is that he solicited foreign interference to help his election campaign, not that he solicited pressure or forced a country to do something that he claims was for the U.S. foreign policy.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Well, that itself has happened. Didn't the Reagan administration convince Iran to hold back the release of the — I mean, Ronald Reagan's people convinced Iran to hold back the release of the Iranian hostages until the president was inaugurated.

JOHN BONIFAZ: There's no question there's a history of impeachable offenses being committed by other administrations. But I do want to come back to this idea that impeachment is a panacea. No one in the impeachment movement — and this has been a people's movement pressuring for impeachment proceedings. No one is suggesting it's a panacea. What is required is that Congress do its job and hold this president accountable for his abuses of power. But that doesn't mean we can't walk and chew gum at the same time.

Free Speech for People has been around for 10 years. We've been taking on big money in politics and corruption in government, and we will continue to do that in the fight for our democracy. But we did not believe we could be true to that mandate without also taking on the unprecedented corruption of this presidency.

And I do want to add, you know, because this is a people's movement, the pressure needs to continue, and will continue, on Congress to expand the scope of its inquiry beyond the Ukraine scandal. On October 13th, there will be a national day of action called by one of our organizational allies, By the People, for marches all across the country. Already a number of marches have been organized on the eve of Congress returning from its recess. People can find out more about that by going to ByThePpl.us and ImpeachNow.org. But this is why we are where we are today, is because people have demanded this, millions of people all over the country, that Congress do its job and uphold the Constitution.

AMY GOODMAN: Well, of course, we'll continue discussions like these, and I thank you so much for being with us, John Bonifaz, attorney, political activist, co-founder and president of Free Speech for People, one of the organizations calling for Trump's impeachment. John Bonifaz is co-author of The Constitution Demands It: The Case for the Impeachment of Donald Trump. And Chris Hedges, formerly with The New York Times, the Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, award-winning author, activist, columnist for the news website Truthdig. His latest article, "The Problem with Impeachment." He has written numerous books; his last, America: The Farewell Tour.

---

This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software. www.avg.com