White House Issues Defiant Letter Refusing To Cooperate In Impeachment Proceedings

The White House continued along its ill-considered strategy of refusing to cooperate in an impeachment inquiry. I have previously written that Speaker Nancy Pelosi has made a fundamental error in not securing a vote of the House to commence an impeachment investigation. However, the letter issued by the White House counsel further undermines the case for executive privilege arguments and could reinforce obstruction allegations in any final articles of impeachment.

The letter rightfully raises concerns over the lack of a House vote of the body and the secrecy of proceedings. The Democrats have limited Republicans in their effort to question witnesses and secure material. However, that is not a legitimate basis for refusing to cooperate or supply clearly material evidence.

The letter emphasizes a lack of due process in the proceedings. The Constitution does not guarantee such rights as confrontation. Indeed, it does not expressly require anything other than a vote of the House on impeachment and a majority threshold for any referral of the matter to the Senate for trial.

Once again, past impeachments (like the one that I handled) have allowed for witness examinations and some adversarial process. That should be the case here. There is clearly an effort by Democrats to prevent serious questioning of witnesses by Republican members. That is not a good practice and undermines the impeachment investigation.

However, none of that justifies the position of the White House. This is a constitutional function of the highest order for Congress. There is a legitimate basis for congressional investigation under both its oversight and impeachment authority. If proven, these allegations of self-dealing could be a basis for articles of impeachment. A President cannot simply pick up his marbles and leave the game because he does not like the other players. A refusal to cooperate with a constitutionally mandated process can itself be an abuse of power.

Worse yet, the letter again undermines the executive privilege arguments that will be key to any court fight. I discussed yesterday how Trump’s tweet about wanting an ambassador to testify (but blocking him because he does not trust the committee) is the death knell for a privilege claim. A president cannot withhold material evidence because he does not like the other party in control of a house of Congress. It must be based on a claim that disclosure, even to a co-equal branch, would undermine national security or diplomatic relations or essential confidential communications. This letter repeats that flawed premise for refusing to cooperate. It is a curious move since tweets by Trump could be dismissed (as the Justice Department did in the immigration litigation) as not reflective of the real position of the government. Now, the White House counsel himself has embraced those same arguments.

The letter is another avoidable self-inflicted wound by a White House that seems intent on counter-punching itself into an impeachment. There are defenses here as well as viable privilege arguments. This letter however is eviscerating those defenses with a reckless abandon.

367 thoughts on “White House Issues Defiant Letter Refusing To Cooperate In Impeachment Proceedings”

  1. Turley: The letter emphasizes a lack of due process in the proceedings. The Constitution does not guarantee such rights as confrontation.

    Due process would be in play with a formal impeachment proceeding that courts ruled is akin to a judicial proceeding. The House is playing politics with Pelosi’s rules in order to protect purple district members. If the House really wants to investigate (as opposed to just vote for impeachment which they can do tomorrow) they would hold a floor vote to initiate a formal impeachment inquiry. This would give the minority various rights that Pelosi’s rules prohibit and give Trump 6th Amendment rights in re witnesses, etc. Pelosi polluted the process and now has to backtrack or live with the consequences.

  2. Why Can’t Dems Treat Trump as Fairly as Republicans Did Bill Clinton?

    The White House informed House Speaker Nancy Pelosi yesterday that “the Executive Branch won’t play along with the lawless ‘inquiry’ that House Democrats have been engaged in,” the New York Post editorial board writes.

    “White House counsel Pat Cipollone’s letter to Pelosi spells out the problems. While the Constitution clearly gives the House the power to begin impeachment proceedings, it does not give the speaker the privilege of declaring them all by herself.”

    Precedent is on President Trump’s side here, the Post writes. Unlike impeachment inquiries against Presidents Bill Clinton and Richard Nixon, Speaker Pelosi never called a floor vote to open proceedings. Instead, House Democrats are deposing witnesses behind closed doors, denying Republican colleagues fair time to ask questions, and “leaking negative info and withholding favorable facts — feeding fanatically anti-Trump media to repeat slanted interpretations as fact.”

    https://nypost.com/2019/10/08/why-cant-dems-treat-trump-as-fairly-as-republicans-did-bill-clinton/

    1. A floor vote on impeachment is NOT required for the House to investigate Trump. What practical difference does it make whether there is a floor vote or not? How is this “unfair”? This is just a stall tactic, like all of Trump’s other stall tactics–like refusing to hand over his tax returns to the NY District Attorney, telling witnesses not to cooperate with Congressional hearings, and refusing to produce records. Cippollone is simply making things up–no law requires a floor vote to investigate Trump, but we already know that it would pass. Impeachment investigations are not criminal proceedings–they are akin to grand jury proceedings, which are conducted in private and ex parte. Since the depositions are private, how do you know that Republicans weren’t given “fair time to ask questions”, unless you heard this on Fox News?

      1. In a formal “impeachment inquiry”, the target(s) would have the opportunity to cross examine witnesses, those deposed would have the right to legal counsel, and those for and against starting an impeachment inquiry would go on the record and vote for it.
        Maybe Nutchoochoo was absent on the day that her “law school” covered these little details.
        Or maybe she was attending another class in pursuit of her claimed degree in nursing.

        1. No. You are wrong about the “opportunity to cross examine witnesses”. An impeachment proceeding is not a criminal proceeding, but because they are under oath, subject to the penalties for perjury, and having the right not to self-incriminate, any witness in any setting when testifying under oath may have counsel present.

          Your ad hominem attacks are getting as stale as Trump’s pettiness directed against anyone he can’t bully.

          1. Natacha – several of us have addressed your changing stories and apparently false claims. If you claim to be both a nurse and a lawyer, and use that as a foundation for your expertise on a matter, expect to get questioned. When you make statements that indicate you do not know how elections work, expect to get called on it.

            Why should you be above criticism? You are free to defend yourself.

            1. Karen: I DO know “how elections work”. Facts don’t seem to soak into your cranium. Trump did not “win the victory” fair or square. He cheated because he had to–with the help of a hostile foreign government that worked with his campaign to disseminate a social media disinformation campaign against his opponent. They targeted a few key districts in a few key states. That is the truth. If you want to see the proof of this, read the Mueller Report. Trump associates either pled or were found guilty of crimes as a result. He may occupy the White House, but he cheated to get there, and now, he’s cheating to try to hang on–doing the same thing again, this time with Ukraine and also publicly asking China to dig up dirt on his opponents. That is unacceptable and un-American.

                  1. The McDougals, Webb Hubbell, and Jim Guy Tucker were convicted. Funny how the Rose Firm billing records were found in the White House residence – with her fingerprints and only her fingerprints on them. Pity about James McDougals untimely death just after his co-operation agreement was inked. Isn’t it funny how Susan McDougal sat in jail for 18 months rather than give testimony under a grant of immunity.

                    Ain’t Hillary the greatest commodity trader of all time. Kind of makes you wonder why she was working for the Rose Firm.

                    Bleach-bit-and-hammers. Works every time.

                    1. DSS, you may not realize this but commodity trading wasn’t done in real time to my understanding. That left the door open for a lot of cheating.

              1. Natacha — you know what’s unacceptable and un-American? It’s how the Democrats and Hillary Clinton have, to this day, refused to acknowledge Trump’s legitimacy. He won the election. Period.

                If you think Barack Obama didn’t cheat like hell in so many ways to get himself over the top in 2012, you are sadly mistaken. But you know what? Republicans graciously accepted the results. THAT is something Democrats no longer do. It’s un American. And it is unbecoming.

                1. Give me a break before I gag. Your cult leader was working the birther lever as fast as he could and it’s not like he didn’t have an audience.

                  1. That’s “your president” to be clear. It’s a threat to our democracy to refuse to accept the results of an election. Hillary said so.

                    As for Obama and his campaign, why don’t you check it out for yourself. From voter fraud to illegal donations, to lies and cheating throughout, you name it, they did it. And they pulled it off, too, with the help of their media allies.

                    But as always, the Republicans graciously conceded. Unlike Democrats who, to this day refuse to. Sore, bitter losers.

                    “Obama Campaign Fined Big for Hiding Donors, Keeping Illegal Donations. The FEC levied one of its largest fines ever against Obama’s campaign committee, new documents show. By Seth Cline, Senior Producer, Jan. 7, 2013”

                    You know how much Enigma likes to talk about “voter suppression”….well Obama knows a lot about “suppressing votes” himself. You know, because for Democrats, the ends always justifies the means.

                    If Hillary Clinton, the Democrats, and their media had accepted the results of the election, it would have gone a long way to healing the country. But alas, all of them have done precisely the opposite — stoking rage and more division and polarization — to this day. The whole lot of them are UnAmerican, unbecoming, unpatriotic, undemocratic, whining, cheating, bitter, sore losers. The Democrat party disgusts me. They cheated and still lost.

                    Walk Away people. Just walk away from the bitter loser party.

          2. Wrong. Courts have ruled that a formal impeachment proceeding precipitated by a floor vote has much of the rights of a judicial proceeding. Without that committee subpoenas, requests, etc. are empty actions. If Pelosi can play politics to protect her purple district members from voting everybody else can also. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

          3. Good Lord Natacha. Obviously an impeachment inquiry is not a criminal proceeding. However, if the Dems used the same procedures as have been used in previous impeachment inquiries, then the Republicans get to ask questions and call witnesses and the WH is invited to participate as well…and the first step would be to have a vote on starting the inquiry. The process the Dems are now using will cause less exculpatory evidence and arguments to be considered. Don’t be surprised when such an unfair process leads to a failure to convict and a backlash amongst the public! 🙂

      2. Natasha read the article.

        But the Democrats can do what they wish and the President doesn’t have to comply with their requests that are involving foreign policy that being a lawyer you recognize is an area where the President has wide latitutde.

        The rest of the stuff is relatively unimportant or he says/ she says. Final judicial judgements are made by the courts and in this case very likely would involve the Supreme Court which would likely take a long term to reach and be a win for Trump. Democrats can’t accept a legal election so they want to overturn it even if it causes harm to American citizens and the Republic. We can’t do anything about that type of bad behavior by Democrats except by defeating them in the next election. In the meantime we have to continue to reveal their duplicity.

        1. Trump will lose this fight. But, he is buying time, so he can do the bidding of those who helped him get into the WH. You think Russia isn’t thrilled over pulling US troops from Syria and allowing Turkey to invade, just like they relished Trump siding with Putin over American Intelligence, and trying to force Russia back into the G-7? Trump’s delay in providing military aid to Ukraine resulted in Russia getting away with taking the Crimea, and forced the Ukraine to agree to let them keep it. Do you think people won’t die because of pulling US troops, or that ISIS won’t back build again? Why wouldn’t he consult military leaders or our allies over this decision? Why this decision and why at this point in time? What’s the sudden urgency, and why is it OK that he seemingly takes orders from Erdogan. Is it a mere coincidence that he has 2 Trump-branded hotels in Turkey?

          1. Natasha, another pay off to his Russian masters by our Traitor in Chief:

            “Washington (CNN)The Trump administration is expected to soon announce that it plans to exit the “Open Skies” treaty, a US official tells CNN, a move that has already drawn condemnation from Democrats in Congress.

            The decision to leave the treaty — which was signed in 1992 and went into effect in 2002 and allows 34 member states to conduct unarmed surveillance flights over one another’s territories — could affect the American military’s ability to conduct aerial surveillance of Russia and other member countries. The treaty is used to help verify arms control agreements, according to the US Defense Threat Reduction Agency, part of the Defense Department….”

            1. Trump is not a traitor. But if you call the POTUS a traitor, you’re drawing a new and more hostile line of belligerence in which others may consider you the traitor for throwing the accusation at him.

              Maybe think about that before you bite off a lot to chew.

              I don”t think Pelosi is a traitor, but I think there are traitors in the CIA, and I think John Brennan is a traitor, openly calling for sabotage by federal employees.

              And, also those who’ve been colluding with these rogue CIA agents, maybe they are too. Or just suckers.

              Seems to me, Pelosi is being dragged along with them it seems, but, who knows what the near future holds. Articles have not been voted yet, and we will see what they say if they are. I doubt they will accuse Trump of being a traitor. You are way out front of your party leadership when you say such a thing. Perhaps they will allege corruption which is quite different than treason. And whatever such an article might say, remember, before you wet yourself with glee, there’s still a trial in the Senate.

          2. “Trump will lose this fight.”

            You have what is known as a ‘flight of ideas’. Many might call it a ‘word salad’ so I want to know which fight are you talking about.

            Kurds:

            Trump is pulling out 400 men from a small area. Did you think it was thousands of men?

            Russia:

            In general the Turks are enemies of Russia and Iran.

            ISIS:

            Do you think the US should go all over the world with troops to wipe out groups like ISIS?
            Does that mean that the US should go into Lebanon and Syria to wipe out Hezbollah?
            Should we wipe out the PKK? They are Kurds you know and they are listed by our government as terrorists

            Do you think the Turks like ISIS? A balance of power is developing where the Sunni nations are aligning on one side and Shiite on the other which is the largest sponsor of State terrorism (Iran) which also has threatened the US.

            Crimea taken over by Russia:

            That happened under Obama.

            Turkey:

            You do realize that Turkey is part of NATO

            Do you know anything about foreign affairs?

          3. natch often me to reply to her instead of just dismissing her as i usually do, so here goes:

            ” You think Russia isn’t thrilled over pulling US troops from Syria and allowing Turkey to invade”

            good question. i don’t know but observe that TURKEY is a NATO ally, and Syrian Kurds are not.

            :they relished Trump siding with Putin over American Intelligence”

            oh, well, I’m not sure if they “relished” it or not, but many times before you have told us what’s in the hearts and minds of national leaders. I don’t have your crystal ball to know such things.

            as for “American intelligence” we see what the White House CIA advisers are up to these days. Not actually advising Trump but SPYING ON HIM as if HE was a Russian head of state.
            they’ve drank too much of your Hillary Kool aid perhaps! No wonder Trump disagreed.

            “trying to force Russia back into the G-7”

            that’s a good idea for American long term strategic interests even if you Russophobia people don’t like it. Sorry, I can’t share your irrational bias towards Russia! National origin discrimination written clearly in your every post!

            “Trump’s delay in providing military aid to Ukraine resulted in Russia getting away with taking the Crimea”

            Totally false. Crimeans were firmly in favor of Russian annexation. If Bosnia can secede than sorry but so can Crimea. Ukraine was already getting pounded in Donbass, don’t think they wanted another black eye in Crimea, anyways

            ,”and forced the Ukraine to agree to let them keep it”

            No not Trump who forced anything, just the West Ukrainian putsch regime’s unpopularity in certain places in its own country which apparently like Russia better. Your irrational fear and obsession over Russia makes the most ardent McCarthyites pale by comparison

            “Do you think people won’t die because of pulling US troops,”

            People die all the time. People would die either way, The main thing is:
            AMERICANS WONT DIE

            “or that ISIS won’t back build again?”
            This one is beyond me ability to predict but YOU HAVE A CRYSTAL BALL WE KNOW
            I would guess that with Turkey more ensconced in that sector, no, they won’t let ISIS play sovereign on their turf. no way. Nor will Assad on his. ISIS is done, I suspect, except as a random terror brand

            ” Why wouldn’t he consult military leaders or our allies over this decision?”
            I SUSPECT HE OBVIOUSLY DID CONSULT THE CHIEF ALLY INVOLVED– TURKEY- !

            “Why this decision and why at this point in time? What’s the sudden urgency”

            i TOLD YOU THIS AT LEAST 2, 3 TIMES THE PAST FEW DAYS,
            BUT YOU IGNORED IT LIKE YOU DO ANYTHING YOU DONT LIKE

            LAST WEEK SYRIA DEMANDED EVACUATION OF FOREIGN FORCES FROM ITS TERRITORY. SYRIA IS STILL A SOVEREIGN NATION. THUS, CONTINUING TO LOCATE AMERICAN SOLDIERS IN THIS SECTOR RISKS AN ACT OF WAR ON SYRIA RATHER THAN THE DEFUCT ISIL.

            HENCE: THE PULLOUT IS A WISE AND LAWFUL ACT.

  3. “The White House continued along its ill-considered strategy of refusing to cooperate in an impeachment inquiry.”

    – Professor Turley
    ______________

    You don’t suppose that King George III and all of Great Britain thought that American Founders employed an “…ill considered strategy…” do you?
    ____

    “Sometimes you have to say, ‘What the —-!'”

    – Miles, “Risky Business”

  4. I am currently reading the 1974 book “The Cult of Intelligence” which outlined how the CIA is staffed by people who think they are super patriots and are above the rest. This is important because it is becoming painfully obvious that the impeachment is a coup by intelligence personnel, a coup organized with certain members of Congress, particularly Adam Schiff. Consequently, the White House is right to resist it. Remember that the same Constitution that gives Congress the power to impeach also gives the Judicial Branch the power to decide Constitutional issues. This is going to end up in the Supreme Court before anything proceeds UNLESS the House actually votes to impeach.

    1. BS. The CIA did not make trump use his official powers and the US Treasury to bribe a foreign government for dirt on a political opponent. Those are the facts. Be a man and deal with it.

      1. CIA’s job is to offer intelligence support to POTUS not spy on POTUS like the craven, meddling, coup-plotting snitches they’re turning out to be at least in the case of the vaunted whistleblower and his cia lawyer and the other cia pantsuit lawyer all dancing to former CIA capo Brennan in their grudge against the President— instead of working against the foreign enemies of America

        but i get it. you guys think the POTUS himself is the enemy. I got it. you said this about a thousand times already

        1. Actually, what CIA officers’ real job is is to advance their careers by recruiting ‘contacts’ who tell them little of value. See Reuel Marc Gerecht on the institution. Michael Scheuer, Valerie Plame, Aldrich Ames. Such an impressive crew.

          1. XIV would have us believe that a super-power nation could get by just fine with no intelligence service.

            1. “XIV would have us believe that a super-power nation could get by just fine with no intelligence service.”

              You fit your name “Most Absurd”. Read what Harry Truman said about the CIA and then think.

            2. Each of the Armed Services has their own intelligence command. There are also four inter-service agencies within the Defense Department. Components of the Departments of the Treasury, Energy, Justice, and Homeland Security collect intelligence, and the State Department has an analytical bureau. The question in re the CIA is bang for the buck. (1) do they have a distinctive mission and (2) do they do it well. At one time, they were supposed to be the locus of expertise in human intelligence and clandestine services. Per Gerecht, the promotion system is so cock-eyed, what they actually get is people who collect useless assets to meet defective metrics. Here’s a suggestion, Peter: it’s the U.S. Postal Service of the intelligence world.

            3. 17 agencies and CIA is just the most arrogant of all.

              https://www.dni.gov/index.php/what-we-do/members-of-the-ic

              I hear a lot of people running their mouths about Mossad all the time. I suspect that 98% of them are ignorant of the existence of a thing called AMAN. 99% are ignorant of LEKEM which was running Pollard as an agent not Mossad.

              I suppose that 100% are ignorant that Israel actually has an ongoing bureau of military censorship over its mass media as well. Most interesting that a vibrant liberal democracy like Israel still sees fit to clip its newspaper-men’s ears sometimes unlike the US which lets the yapping dogs of media run amuck with their fake news, leaks, disinformation and defamations every day.

              Ignorance seems to be the chief requirement for having a forceful opinion in some places these days.

          2. His daddy Carleton Ames was a CIA officer drunk and so was Aldrich Ames too. Maybe CIA has other drunks running amuck in its crew today. They knew he was a drunk and just kept promoting him. INCOMPETENT CIA!

      2. “BS. The CIA did not make trump use his official powers and the US Treasury to bribe a foreign government for dirt on a political opponent. Those are the facts. Be a man and deal with it.”

        BS, Anon. So far the CIA and Democratic party working together haven’t accomplished their goals and Trump hasn’t stepped over the line while doing a fantastic job.

        “Be a man and deal with it.”

    2. The Obama Coup D’etat in America is the most egregious abuse of power and the most prodigious scandal in American political history.

      The co-conspirators are:

      Rosenstein, Mueller/Team, Andrew Weissmann, Comey, Christopher Wray,

      McCabe, Strozk, Page, Laycock, Kadzic, Yates, Baker, Bruce Ohr, Nellie Ohr,

      Priestap, Kortan, Campbell, Sir Richard Dearlove, Steele, Simpson, Joseph Mifsud,

      Alexander Downer, Stefan “The Walrus” Halper, Azra Turk, Kerry, Hillary, Huma, Mills,

      Brennan, Gina Haspel, Clapper, Lerner, Farkas, Power, Lynch, Rice, Jarrett, Holder,

      Brazile, Sessions (patsy), Obama et al.
      _______________________________

      The puppet masters pulling the strings are a higher pay grade (their initials are International Bankers). A Banana Split consists of bananas, three scoops of ice cream, strawberry, pineapple and chocolate topping, whipped cream and chopped nuts. The cherry on top consists of International Bankers.

      1. The Putin coup d’état is well-documented in the Mueller Report. Read it. This crap about Obama, out of office for 3 years now, engaging in a coup d’état, is nothing more than right-wing blather.

        1. The “crap” about Trump from the deranged Natacha, 3 years on, is “nothing more than” left wing blather.

          1. Anonymous – the problem is that these are not the ignored ravings of a subway station lunatic. She repeats much of what she hears on MSNBC and CNN, where journalistic integrity is now an oxymoron.

            1. Unlike Karen’s, Natasha’s comments are factual, focused, and on point. No wonder she and other’s don’t want to engage her.

                1. The usual dense magpies – none of them with gonads to take on Natasha – luxuriate in their back patting majority as if it made them credible or self respecting. Not even stable geniuses.

              1. “Natasha’s comments are factual, focused, and on point.” And, just like that, Anon lost all possible credibility and self respect. However, he was long built a reputation as someone whose arguments consisted of nothing but insults.

                When a rooster gets that pugnacious, he just goes into the pot.

              2. Unlike Karen’s, Natasha’s comments are factual, focused, and on point.

                Actually, Natacha reads like someone under the care of a shrink who just cannot get the dosage on her psychotropics right.

                Whatever Brock is paying you, it’s too much.

              3. I dissected her erroneous speculations about Syria today in another thread. It’s almost a certainty that she will ignore the specifics and go on another rant about Narcissist Trump etc.

                You can shine her apple but she’s a half eaten browning core compared to your former ally Peter who’s apparently losing interest with our conversations here. I hope you don’t quit or else I will only have Natch crazy rants to read in order to stimulate my thought processes and that would be a dismal and inadequate alternative.

                So, don’t get to worked up in the meantime and quit! It would be a shame, I’ve come to enjoy our chats!

            2. You have no clue what any media say other than Fox News, and it shows. And, like your hero, you engage in ad hominem attacks against people who point out your foibles.

              1. If you hate it so much I might start watching FOX except I generally hate tv

                I sometimes hear a little fox radio but usually just NPR. I find my remarks about NPR are often ignored by you people. Perhaps you should listen to NPR, they’re a bunch of Hillary and Obama lackeys so you might like it.

        2. Clapper just said that Obama directed surveillance of the Trump campaign.

          https://www.commdiginews.com/politics-2/the-russia-hoax-james-clapper-throws-barack-obama-under-the-bus-123520/

          SO much for right wing blather. You guys love Clapper so much why not believe him now?

          Why if you say it was corrupt for Trump to ask for an investigation of Biden, why was it not corrupt for Obama to direct assets to investigate Trump? You’re going to have a hard time explaining that one to the voters.

          1. Kurtz, why didn’t you provide the teaser of Clapper’s quote?

            “oh, by the way, blown off what the then commander in chief, President Obama, told us to do. It’s kind of disconcerting now to be investigated for, you know, having done our duty and done what we were told to do by the president.”

            Or this teaser “Hastings had said shortly before his death that he was working a huge story involving John Brennan and abuse of NSA surveillance systems. A week later he was dead.”

            or…”As Clapper and Brennan were working on Barrack Obama’s orders then-President Obama knew of this illegal surveillance”

            This is the other side of the coin that those on the left refuse to look at.

  5. i dont think rafael cruz was handing out leaflets with oswald, that is unlikely., but he’s a strange cat. anyways, the issue is not his dad, it’s him. Ted’s a team player. he’s strong yet flexible. I like him more now that you call him a bad name.

  6. The effect of impeachment is to overturn the popular will of the voters. We must not overturn an election and remove a President from office except to defend our system of government or our constitutional liberties against a dire threat, and we must not do so without an overwhelming consensus of the American people. There must never be a narrowly voted impeachment or an impeaclnnent supported by one of our major political parties and opposed by another. Such an impeachment will produce divisiveness and bitterness in our politics for years to come, and will call into question the very legitimacy of our political institutions. — Rep. Jerrold Nadler, 1998

      1. Thankfully the Founding Fathers knew the popular will of the voters could be bought, influenced, manipulated, fickle and unreliable, hence the Electoral College. Hillary and Nazi Dims want to abolish the EC as a Constitutional mandate because they hate the US Constitution and are power hungry infidels…something the Founding Fathers knew first hand from English monarchs

          1. and like every other thing you don’t like which you can tie to slavery, that justifies you rejecting its legitimacy as an institution, even though it presently has nothing to do with it. OK! got it.

            note to voters: Democrat party says Electoral College is a relic of antebellum South, urges Civil War 2 on Republican party to further punish historical wrongs from generations before we were born.

            PS get ready to write the check for at least the mule if not the 20 acres, darnit!

              1. No, how about we make every voting district count, so that there would be guaranteed to be presidents who work for their benefit, too.

              2. For me, I have never been a big fan of widening the franchise. If it was me I would cut it back like to way it was in ancient Athens. LOL But for now, no, I am content with the electoral college. If it goes, then all hell breaks loose, as the mass media will fully control America at that point. Which will trigger chaos and a fast Thermidorian reaction.

                Your ardent embrace of an ever widening franchise risks chaos and inevitable tyranny. This was the lesson of Napoleon.

            1. “every other thing you don’t like which you can tie to slavery”

              Kurtz, my ice cream melted. It’s because of those slaveholding states.

                1. YNOT, are you telling me my ice cream didn’t melt because of slavery. Wow, you have opened my eyes. What brilliance. Can you tell me if that goes for all flavors?

            2. The Electoral College IS a relic of the antebellum South. Sure, it now beefs up some Western states like Wyoming that wouldn’t have much sway because of its meager population, but pretty much the states that benefitted then do so now.
              I’ll throw in something else, why do each of the major parties give a lopsided amount of power to early primary states Iowa and New Hampshire? What do they have in common? Better yet, who do they exclude?

              1. Enigma, I suggest you review what states had slavery and the populations of the states, total and otherwise. 8 States had slavery and except for Massachusettes they had the bulk of the population I believe Virginia was probably the most populous state and some very important people came from that state. You will probably spit on the floor at the thought of those people since they were white. Consider Virginia to be like California in population

                  1. Enigma, what is your point? That sexual abuse has occurred throughout history to all sorts of people and even animals? That slavery existed whether people be white, black, yellow or red? That blacks owned and abused slaves? That the slave trade started in Africa where the initial sellers were black? That man is imperfect?

                    You have reaped the benefits of our society, were given scholarships, and you live a life of riches compared to most of the population in the world. Despite all that you are a constant complainer and instead of helping the world become a better place you wish to focus only on the past that is over and you have no relation to.

                    Do you wish to compare the injustices our mutual families have suffered? You don’t know what suffering is. Our mutual families struggled to survive and we made it but they didn’t bring us to this point to look backwards. Their intent was for us to look forward.

                    1. Enigma, I don’t want to shut you up. I want you to speak and demonstrate what happens when thinking goes awry. You want me to prove something that was proven over a number of postings so that context would be easily understood? You want me to deal with more than one thread where that was discussed and then proven again many postings later at your request. Your words and tone demonstrate what that small bit of dialogue was all about but you made multiple claims that were wrong as well. I think you have tempered down substantially since then.

                      It’s OK Enigma. I like you and don’t want anyone preventing you from speaking. If you remember I even defended you when one list member made a racist comment about you. I would be glad having you as a neighbor and even barbequing with you. Political differences don’t enter my mind where normal social discourse occurs. By the way where barbequed chicken is concerned I like half a chicken so I have both dark and light meat.

                    2. Enigma asks:

                      “Is it more racist to refuse to acknowledge history or reveal it?”

                      ANOTHER GREAT QUESTION! keep them coming

                      I would say that depends on context.

                      although I don’t muck like the word racism, since it’s so vague and can mean whatever the one who utters it wants, let’s say that the word means to flame irrational racial resentment.

                      well. some historical facts may be ugly and flame fans of resentment, although entirely true. to utter them at certain times, could be racist.

                      let’s say for example, an Indian tribe opens a new casino, with the help of a white owned and managed casino operating contractor. now, some local, competing casino maybe doesn’t like it. they clandestinely hire some “protestors” to show up on ribbon cutting day to “denounce the history of genocidial extermination of indians and to reject the white capitalist pigs’ meager welfare for survivors”

                      that could be a capitalist, using racist resentment talk, based on true facts of racial conquest, to actually gain capitalistic advantage against a commerical rival

                      where would be the truth, untruth, racism or not, in such a scenario?

                      i would contend that many social conflicts are mixed bags of interests, and that trotting out racism to explain things overmuch, at the very least, oversimplifies complex social reality.

                  2. Thank goodness black people aren’t as stupid or as racist as their self-appointed spokesmen. Never met one who ever blamed their plight on slavery. Never met one who felt animosity towards other races just because of race. Never met one who didn’t appreciate whatever our flaws are, we’re In this world together. None that is who weren’t hustlers.

                    1. The thing is that blacks seem to have a bifurcated understanding of the world around them. On the one hand, there is their mundane life, with which they may have their dissatisfactions but in regard to which any recrimination they feel is directed at specific individuals they deal with in meatspace (and who are in their face in regard to one thing or another). On the other is their abstract sense of history, social relations, and the civic environment, which is derived from the kultursmog and from family lore. The two sides of their mind don’t talk to each other much. It’s regrettable they don’t, because one consequence of them not speaking is the dreadful political culture which keeps people like John Conyers and Maxine Waters in office for generations.

                    2. Who bother you because they point out your fictions, fallacies, and pretensions.

                  3. Enigma — you are stuck in your ‘story’ of what a Victim you are. Stop it. You are so much more than this victim-y, poor me, oh what y’all done unto me, ya’ll would love to shut me up, blah blah blah. Rise up, man. Be the change. Know what I mean?

                  4. from Enigma’s article

                    ““The central paradox at the heart of [this university] is also the central paradox of the nation, the unresolved paradox of American liberty,” Ms McInnis said.

                    “How is it that the nation that defined the natural rights of humankind did so within a system that denied those same rights to millions of people?”

                    She paused. “What does it mean, to have a university founded by the man who said all men are created equal – and to have that same university built and maintained through the stolen liberty of others?”

                    THESE ARE EXCELLENT QUESTIONS

                    I would contend however, that the central paradox is less relevant to us considered in terms of slavery and racial conflict, than it is in social inequality of income and assets.

                    I know that makes me sound like a despicable leftist SJW which I am not.

                    However, the Declaration is both a lofty tract of ideals, and also wartime propaganda. IT was intended to get poor and middle class white male colonials to enlist against the Crown for Massa Tom and his friends to be the NEW KINGS in Republican drag.

                    And in every generation on down since– including most of all the CIVIL WAR– poor and middle class white men have paid the price in blood for the American plutocracy’s wars.

                    So I would say, yes these are very good paradoxes to ponder. And white men should ponder them not in terms of historical injustices to blacks, which fade into the mists of time, but today’s immediate concerns wherein financialization has offshored millions of jobs, “free trade” has hollowed out the industrial core, mass migration has pushed wages down, most of all for unskilled laborers, and other subtle changes which have benefited Wall Street, have stabbed Main street in the back.

                    Permit me to say, this is part of why I like Donald Trump, On the Dem side, the guy who is aiming at the next wave of change to deeply affect American labor in a bad way, is Andrew Yang.

                    And we can see that even as he is carefully ignored by the mass media, Yang has gained ground in the Dem side of the contest. That’s a positive sign of increasing social consciousness of how the schemes of our own living billionaire oligarchs today affects our fate as much or if not more than the lingering effects of whatever happened centuries ago.

                    But those were great questions from the article, thanks Enigma

              2. if your point, as anon1 renders it, that this benefits the white voting block. Well, with respect, I like that because I’m a white guy. You’re a black guy you want blacks more powerful, I can understand that. I grant you your interest in empowering your people. Now will you grant me the same legitimacy?

                I doubt it.

                Hence, we should not disarm ourselves for your pleasure and advantage. I will let white people crippled by guilt offer themselves up as sacrifice instead. Anon1 steps forward to atone for the guilt of long dead white folks! Maybe he will be exempt from “reparations” for his charitable notions. Or perhaps not? Does he not share the white privilege too? I will let you guys figure that out. I won’t be offering myself up for any willing sacrifice, if you’ll excuse me, I am interested in preserving my own humble existence and willing to bear the shame!

                But diversity is bringing wisdom to white folks. I sense there will be fewer and fewer of socially atomized white people with no sense of sticking together, as the demographics fragment and the mass migration phenomenon introduces more foreigners to our shores. This interesting dynamic both brings new populations who are non-white but don’t have a grudge against white people– and yet also don’t identify with the heavy grudge that some black folks carry against whites for what happened centuries ago.

                This dynamic will encourage and at times force white people to think more and more as a distinct social group with its own legitimate interests. You can call that whatever you like but it’s a natural survival instinct of any social group which is even vaguely based on ancestry.

                1. “if your point, as anon1 renders it, that this benefits the white voting block. Well, with respect, I like that because I’m a white guy. You’re a black guy you want blacks more powerful, I can understand that.”

                  Kurtz, why would one group wish to empower any group over another? Government is supposed to benefit all Americans and that is where government has gone wrong. It has enterred into our personal spheres and thereby places one person against another. That is a very good reason for limited government and placing more responsibility in the hands of local communities.

                  1. groups will always form, divide, reform, and compete.

                    this is always the way of nature. for animals and us alike

                    individualism often operates as a ruse to delude members of groups into thinking that they can just focus on money stuff and ignore what more abstract social conflicts are transpiring around them. well sometimes that works and other times they get crushed because they didn’t mind the bigger waves that would crash over their rails as they just looked at the waters narrowly ahead and not farther off

                    1. “groups will always form, divide, reform, and compete.
                      this is always the way of nature. for animals and us alike”

                      Yes ,Kurtz, but why must we all agree and vote on such things so that we require a “voting block” based on race at the federal level? That is what it seems you were calling for in your comment above.

                    2. Allan, there won’t necessarily be a racial voting block for any race or national origin group. there may be. in the case of California white people however it seems to me they are generally deluded about so many things they will be voting foolishly at any given time

                      likewise, the extent to which the Democrats assume “Latinos” will in every generation just reflexively vote for their party, is also a foolish presumption, belied by many many races in Texas, and other places

                      but to the extent some folks want to specifically target white people as a nefarious group of political actors, well, I’m stuck with the color of my skin so I will just oppose that reflexively and doggedly as it defines my existence whether I want it to or not.

                      in school growing up they always wanted us to be empathetic to black people who are locked into that fate. i learned that empathy. but i can apply the same empathy to myself and my group if need be.

                      if anon1 lacks empathy for his own kind, well, that’s his emotional fate, and it is probably a burdensome one. good luck with that!

                      What i find is that my feelings of natural belonging to the vague group of white americans is generally not held against me by nonwhite people, not mexicans, not asian people, not even black folks

                      what i generally find is that it’s white people who get nervous when I talk that way. well, they will eventually get over their nerves as they find themselves attacked more and more as a group, like these guys do here, for different reasons i suspect…. really, as a humble person, there is nothing I can do to stop nor advance this dynamic, it’s a natural process, and one that arises out of social resource competition.

                    3. Kurtz I think you err in thinking that whites will separate themselves and more strongly identify as a group in the future.Interracial and interethnic couples are increasing in the US and cultural differences declining.

                      A willingness to share the wealth can be viewed as enlightened self interest. It is not a zero sum game out there.

                    4. alan you asked what interest might white americans not have in common with other groups

                      of course that’s a matter of opinion and context, but here’s a few possibilities

                      nonwhite group a seeks more of its coethnics from abroad. they think that more of their people will form a bloc of voters over time, which will extract resources from native born white americans via social programs or what have you.

                      nonwhite group b deems white americans as perpetrators of historical injustices who owe them 40 acres and a mule and should be subject to taxation for reparations etc. and will vote in a block to try and make it happen.

                      that sort of thing, could be an oppositional situation that white voters might seriously take into wise consideration as a voting block. for example

                      if you are heading for the proposition that WE ALL SHOULD OPPOSE SOCIALISM which allows for such confiscatory taxation and transfer payments, I might say, of course, except those who plan to DO IT do not agree and will proceed with a bandit’s intentions regardless of ideology.

                    5. Kurtz, what you are pointing out may be “a very good reason for limited government and placing more responsibility in the hands of local communities.” which I said earlier but not a good reason for tribalism to exist based on skin color and trivial things of that nature promoted by the federal government. People normally choose who they wish to associate with so they live their lives in certain fashions which might represent a bias but that is their right. We should not be dealing with these things on the federal level except where federal laws are broken but we shouldn’t be stretching those laws either. No matter what race I am I have more in common with a different race than those of the same race that wish to use their power against another race.

                  2. there is nothing inherently racist or hateful about white people thinking about their group interests and how they can compete– AND COOPERATE– with other social groups. i absolutely favor, peace, harmony, cooperation, and mutual benefit in society.

                    at the same time, when some elect on a strategy of conflict, then we must adapt.

                    let me return to a harmonious notion for a moment. you can see this in socalled white neighborhoods around the country in the suburbs as asian americans fold into the social fabric effortlessly and with mutual benefit to all who surround them with their work ethic and their peaceful law abiding social habits.

                    some other people don’t “fold in” very well because of whatever reasons. a perpetual grudge is something that can inhibit such people from harmonious integration with the other. well, some groups elect for that strategy, and i suppose it is their right to make their own choices. but other people will, too

                    there will be cooperation and there will be conflict. cooperation is almost always more efficient than conflict, and that’s one of the virtues of capitalism or rather private property and free market enterprise, in that it allows for voluntary social cooperation to expand resources and human social capital, rather than just focusing on subdividing it.

                    sometimes “capitalists” as in the highest stratum of plutocrats, are the worst “socialists” around and the hungarian guy george whatsisname comes to mind

                    and sometimes the garden variety “socialist” person who is maybe just a young person with naive views, is actually a person of good quality who will soon learn to be more realistic about economics

                    I’m for facile thinking and flexibility and not being too tied into strict dogmatic ideological labels. I’m also for peaceful social cooperation. by focusing on group cooperation, we open up a lot of positive opportunities, in many areas of life. by focusing on me me me we get shortsighted. this can happen to anybody.

                    1. “there is nothing inherently racist or hateful about white people thinking about their group interests”

                      Kurtz, can you tell me what those significant interests are that do not have commonality with non-white groups?

                    2. Allan, sorry i messed your name i typed too fast

                      Anon1 says:

                      Anon1 says:October 10, 2019 at 4:46 PM
                      “Kurtz I think you err in thinking that whites will separate themselves and more strongly identify as a group in the future.Interracial and interethnic couples are increasing in the US and cultural differences declining.”

                      I say: i admit there is such a trend. however, it may only go up to a certain point and then stop. I don’t have a crystal ball. who knows.

                      secondly, it is a slow process and in the meantime things happen quickly

                      thirdly, if whites are attacked as a group, as people like Kamala Harris and Corey Booker want to do, then it will accelerate the group forming consciousness. Even attacking “old white guys” like Sanders or Biden will do the same.

                      “A willingness to share the wealth can be viewed as enlightened self interest. It is not a zero sum game out there.”

                      that is a valid viewpoint. in economics of course it is not a zero sum game. your point is strongest in general social cooperation especially business.

                      but in voting, sometimes it is a zero sum game.

          2. The Electoral College was established to protect the slaveholding states from having their will thwarted by the majority.

            Only in the empty space between your ears. The Constitutional Convention considered several different plans for electing the president – election by Congress, election by state legislatures, popular election and settled on the electoral college as a jerry-rigged compromise. Since it did little to enhance the weight of the slave-holding states, no clue why you fancy it was done for that purpose.

          3. Why would less populated states want to join the union if they were never going to have a say in electing the leader of the country? And if they did not have enough votes to matter, then elected leaders would either ignore those states, or use them as dumping grounds. I am curious how they would have pitched this when negotiating the formation of the union. Hey, guys on the frontier. We really want you to join, but we have enough votes to overwhelm you, so you’ll never get anything you need from us. However, it would really help us out if we could have your resources, draft your men in times of war, and grow the country.

            We see this on the local level. Rural areas are the trash cans for the cities. Sex offenders concentrate there, because it’s easier for them to find housing far enough away from schools. We get the prisons, the trash dumps, and the rest of the problems of the NIBYs. When the city finally clears out the homeless, they bus them to rural campgrounds.

            The city voters take the water from rural farmers. They cap the wells of rural people. They tax them on hardscape. They render trucks obsolete that they use to get water hauled, septic tanks pumped, and to get hay.

            We rural folk live the reality every day of what it means when your vote doesn’t count. The elites just tell us to eat cake. It really is too bad that what happens in rural areas is only voted upon by those who live there.

            1. Karen, read my lips: Without the EC a voter in Montana has exactly the same vote weight as a voter in LA.

              With it, they can both stay home and not waste their time.

              This is not difficult.

              1. Anon – look, this concept seems very difficult for you to understand. The Senate is able to represent the wishes of the entire country, through 2 senators per state. The reason why we have the Senate is to avoid a couple of highly populated states running the country all on their own, with the rest of the country never having a say in anything. They would never get any funding for their states, while those couple of highly populated ones would feed at the trough.

                If only 2 states mattered in a Presidential election, no one would bother to campaign in the Other 48. No one would tailor their policy to help the Other 48. They would be tributes, paying taxes they can’t affect, providing soldiers to wars when the draft is enforced, but have no say in the government. It would be NY, CA, and Everyone Else.

                Obviously, there is no point in continuing an association of states that is by definition detrimental to your state, so they would revolt. Why would the Other 48 stay in a union at that point?

                Plus, when you knew exactly which districts would elect every President, you would know where to engage in fraud.

                The Left, as per usual, supports government tyranny. This differentiates the Hard Left, becoming more popular, with the moderate Democrat.

                https://youtu.be/V6s7jB6-GoU

                https://youtu.be/JFGhX0hLy6E

                1. Thought Exercise:

                  Democrats succeed in either abolishing the Electoral College, or they thwart the Constitution by passing laws that require the Electoral College of each state go towards the national popular vote.

                  Result:

                  New York and California become king makers. No other state matters. The Republican Party stops bothering to put up a presidential candidate, because it’s just a waste of money. No, they put their resources to other use. After a few years of treating the Other 48 like a trash can, those states revolt. The Other 48 empty. There is a mass migration of Republicans to deliberately concentrate their vote, so that they can finally be counted.

                  Then, when they seize power, they treat NY and CA as a dumping ground. No other vote could possibly matter besides those Republican states. And since they will never matter, no candidate bothers to campaign in any of them. The Democrat Party stops bothering to put up a candidate.

                  There are those who are working to disenfranchise most of America to get what they want. Sometimes, people have to be disenfranchised themselves, because they just don’t care how much they hurt others.

                  1. NY and California cannot possibly dictate national elections. It is impossible.

                    On the other hand, under current winner take all EC elections, 8 swing states are all that matter and the rest of us are irrelevant and of no interest to campaigns.

                    If you’re going to make something up can make it more fun?

                    1. Which state is a swing state changes frequently. As the videos that I linked earlier pointed out, and you ignored, that means that a presidential candidate ignores any one state at their peril. Sooner or later, that state would become a swing state. Hillary got burned by this.

                    1. Most Americans were thrilled beyond words at the result of the 2016 election. What you said is not the truth.

                      “Truth” is true for everyone, no exceptions. Therefore, what you said is not true. It is false.

                    2. A more true statement: you, Natacha, got cheated out of your choice for president. Speak for yourself. You have no idea how much support there is in this country for President Trump.

                      I, Anonymous, was thrilled beyond measure on election night and look forward to 2020 and President Trump’s reelection.

                    3. “Anonymous says:October 9, 2019 at 8:39 PM
                      Most Americans were thrilled beyond words at the result of the 2016 election. What you said is not the truth.”

                      “Most?”

                      Many, maybe, but “most?”

                    4. Anonymous – personally, I was surprised about election night, however when they would not call Florida I knew it was all over for Hillary.

                2. Beyond Karen’s confusion of what the Senate represents – it is not the wishes of the entire country – her math sucks. NY and Calif cannot dominate the national vote, even if their voters were unanimous in their sentiments. The current winner take all EC system has not only failed twice in the last 7 elections to express the will of the people, but the candidates are able to ignore all but about 8 states in their campaigning while the voters of most states could have stayed home.

                  Direct elections or a proportional EC would make all votes equal and therefore important no matter where you lived in the US.

                  1. “Beyond Karen’s confusion of what the Senate represents – it is not the wishes of the entire country”

                    Anon, you are really struggling here. The Senate gives each state equal say, so that the entire country has a say in government, not just a couple of high population states. Without that, each state would not have an equal say, because…math.

                    I cannot tell if you are too obtuse to grasp this, or if you just want Leftist tyranny, and are trying your hand at propaganda.

                    1. The states are often arbitrary geographical designations, made even more arbitrary in today’s mobile world. S Dakota and N Dakota have less people combined than San Diego, but 4 Senators, so if you think cows and corn need that power, you have the right system. In the meantime, a shrinking world has eliminated our regional differences and identities and then we make several moves in the average life. Additionally – try to keep up Karen – we follow national news, not regional, state, or local, so the issues and politicians on the national stage are better known while the real corruption happens in the backwaters without newspapers and little focus. Quick, who’s your state senator? Who’s your US Senator?

                      In short, beyond power plays at the time and patrician attitudes toward rule by the common people – that would be us – the Senate would not and should not exist as coequal and even superior to the House., and there is even less reason for it now, though we are stuck with it. The only people who think this is a good principle for other branches of government are those like Karen looking for an excuse to justify their getting two presidents they didn’t win out of the last 7 and – given their reactionary and elitist beliefs- shrinking chances of winning any in the future.

                    2. Anon, you have expressed a real antipathy for country people. You sound like Hillary. That elitist snobbery lost her most voting districts.

                      It is the very people whom elitists despise who keep the country running – farmers, ranchers, builders, etc.

                      If there was ever an existential catastrophe, lawyers, academics, and politicians would not be considered critical skills.

                      At least you are consistent. Your desire to abolish the Senate and concentrate more power in the House would disenfranchise most of America. The hard Left is tyrannical.

                      In addition, I do know my state representatives and local government, as I’ve contacted them. If most people don’t, the public school system has done a poor job teaching civics.

                  2. Anon1 — what indoctrination center of ‘higher learning’ did you graduate from? wait, wait, don’t tell me….

              2. “Karen, read my lips”. Hey, isn’t that one of the best known broken political promises in modern times?

                Ironic choice of words, there, Anon, if you were going for authoritative.

              3. Living out here in flyover, we might as well consign our whole vote to the garbage if we do away with the EC. It will be entirely up to California, New York, Texas, and Florida at that point, the most populous states.

                This is simply unacceptable to flyover states and we reserve the right to oppose major changes that will nullify our votes, just to please the current posture of the Democrat party.

                So what if Republican party is protecting the interests of the middle states? GOOD! At least one party cares.

                See this dynamic, if you take it far enough, leads to civil war, again. One in which the coasts, by the way, will soon run out of FOOD. Think about that before you bite off more than you can chew.

            2. Karen, I don’t think Enigma accepts the fact that the Constitution was a compromise and certain things were recognized about the Articles of Confederation during the Revolutionary War that led to such a compromise.

            3. The Electoral College wasn’t established to protect small states. Eight of the first nine Presidential elections were won by plantation owners from the then most populous state… Virginia. You may not like the origins of the Electoral College but that doesn’t make it okay to deny what it was.

              1. The Electoral College wasn’t established to protect small states. Eight of the first nine Presidential elections were won by plantation owners from the then most populous state…

                There’s a logical fallacy in there which might just have an ancient proper name.

          4. “The Electoral College was established to protect the slaveholding states from having their will thwarted by the majority.

            Enigma, I thought you were too old to have read Howard Zinn’s textbooks that balance facts in an odd and ignorant way.

            1. Allan and enigma – here is the first census of the USA. It is on a pdf so it will take a few moments to load up. enigma, you might want to take a look at the population of Pennsylvania and the white population of Virginia.

          5. How abolishing the electoral college is discriminatory:

            https://www.rgj.com/story/opinion/voices/2019/01/08/electoral-college-best-method-presidential-elections-wozniak/2514497002/

            “It is clear these individuals do not understand why we have the Electoral College when electing a president and how it provides all voters to be represented.

            Let’s include some facts on the 2016 presidential election:

            There are 3,141 counties in the United States, and Donald Trump won the overwhelming majority. There are 62 counties in New York State. Trump won in 45 counties. Clinton won only 17 counties.

            Clinton won the popular vote by approx. 1.5 million votes in New York City’s five counties (Bronx, Brooklyn, Manhattan, Richmond and Queens). Clinton received well over 2 million more votes than Trump as Clinton won four of these counties and Trump only won, Richmond. These five counties alone more than accounted for Clinton winning the popular vote of the entire country. These five New York counties comprise 319 square miles. The United States is comprised of 3,797,000 square miles…

            Our founders realized the popular vote would discriminate against smaller counties and states. Why? Presidential candidates only would visit states with the most people if the popular vote elected the president.”

            See how New York alone was able to tip the popular vote?

            Democrats want to abolish the Electoral College for one reason, and one reason only. It will give them a political advantage. This obviously is not about fairness, or representing the interests of all of America. It’s about winning at any cost. If they have to make most of America irrelevant, then so be it.

            1. Karen

              You and Jonathan should debate the topic. Post the debate, here, please.

              October 9, 2012

              END THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE

              by Jonathan Turley

              https://jonathanturley.org/2012/10/09/end-the-electoral-college/

              Excerpt:

              The reason that the Electoral College is still with us is that it is a critical protection for the two-party monopoly on power in the USA. The Democrats and Republicans effectively keep presidential candidates of the opposing party out of their states — deterring the expenditure of time and money in organizing these states. Opposing candidates and parties face even greater obstacles because most voters view the result as irrelevant to the outcome of elections.

              Undemocratic relic

              Ultimately, the Electoral College should be rescinded as a fundamentally undemocratic institution. John Quincy Adams was elected by just 32% of the popular vote. He is among the 15 presidents who have taken office with less than 50% of the vote:

              James Polk
              Zachary Taylor
              James Buchanan
              Abraham Lincoln
              Rutherford Hayes
              James Garfield
              Grover Cleveland (twice)
              Benjamin Harrison
              Woodrow Wilson (twice)
              Harry Truman
              John Kennedy
              Richard Nixon
              Bill Clinton (twice)
              George W. Bush.

              Some presidents like Bush were elected not only by less than a majority but also with fewer votes than his opponent. For the many Americans who are unhappy with this political system and want change, a key and obtainable reform is a constitutional amendment requiring the direct and majority election of presidents in either a general or, if necessary, a runoff election. A president represents all Americans, and he or she should be elected by the vote of citizens as Americans, as a whole.

              It is time for the United States to embrace true democracy. It is time to kill the Electoral College.

              Jonathan Turley, the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University, is a member of USA TODAY’s Board of Contributors.

            2. So Counties are people too like corporations? I haven’t advocated elimination of the Electoral College although I wasn’t for reparations either until I studied it more. I am clear (unlike those here who are compelled to deny it) as to the why of the Electoral College which was to protect slavery. The beloved Founders knew that, they created it.

              1. Maybe it was Enigma, so what.

                I personally don’t care WHY THEN 220 years ago or whenever. I don’t care if it was 20 years ago.

                I care about now and the next cycle as does any other rational voter.

                If it means that we out here in flyover will henceforth not have much of a say because the massive populations of NY, CA, TX and FL will decide the election, then I would adamantly oppose the change.

                Personally i ardently dislike Californian politics, and I’ve had an earful of it from my white-skinned liberal relatives my entire lifetime, who like some of the people here, never tire of calling us folks in the middle rubes, hillbillies, hayseeds, etc. It’s a despicable lot of white people who worship Silicon Valley as God and Hollywood as Goddess. I Puke in their general direction. I flatulate upon their preferences and I defecate upon their presumptions.

                I would sooner have Canadians decide our next election than Californians. And i dont like them either.

                1. “I would sooner have Canadians decide our next election…And i dont like them either.”

                  I’d give Jordan Peterson a pass, though. 🙂

        1. The winner take all EC is not in the constitution. Maybe you should read it before spouting nonsense.

          If the GOP ever wins the popular vote for the presidency again – they’ve lost 6 of the last 7 – and they somehow lose in the EC, we’re going to see a lot of rewriting of constitutional theory on the right and here.

          1. NB, the Democratic candidate has won a popular majority four times during the post-war period, out of 18 presidential elections.

        2. The intent of the Founders that somehow got lost was a restricted-vote republic. The next Republican dominated government should immediately codify that “original intent” which generally consisted of the criteria: Male, European, 21 with 50 lbs Sterling or 50 acres. In 1790, 1795, 1798 and 1802, the American Founders passed Naturalization Acts which required citizens to be “…free white person(s)…” which was a fundamental restriction of voting rights. The Greeks created democracy as restricted-vote republicanism.

          The tyrannical and oppressive despot, “Crazy Abe” Lincoln, and his similarly illegitimate successors superseded the Naturalization Acts of the Founders, improperly ratified unconstitutional Amendments and coerced and forced voting rights modifications through at the point of a gun and under the duress of brutal, post-war military occupation at the conclusion of their “Reign of Terror” (“Crazy Abe’s 1864 victory was assured by his military which commandeered the election and “counted” the vote).
          ________

          “When the people find that they can vote themselves money that will herald the end of the republic.”

          – Benjamin Franklin
          ________________

          “The true reason (says Blackstone) of requiring any qualification, with regard to property in voters, is to exclude such persons, as are in so mean a situation, that they are esteemed to have no will of their own.”

          “If it were probable that every man would give his vote freely, and without influence of any kind, then, upon the true theory and genuine principles of liberty, every member of the community, however poor, should have a vote… But since that can hardly be expected, in persons of indigent fortunes, or such as are under the immediate dominion of others, all popular states have been obliged to establish certain qualifications, whereby, some who are suspected to have no will of their own, are excluded from voting; in order to set other individuals, whose wills may be supposed independent, more thoroughly upon a level with each other.”

          – Alexander Hamilton, The Farmer Refuted, 1775
          _______________________________________

          “the people are nothing but a great beast…
          I have learned to hold popular opinion of no value.”

          – Alexander Hamilton
          _________________

      2. Anon:

        “The popular will of the voters was to not elect Trump.” Sure they did…in voting districts all across America. A handful of highly populated voting districts voted for Hillary Clinton, but, in a republic, they don’t get to disenfranchise the rest of America. Each population got to vote how they wanted their own electoral votes to go. Most parts of America rejected Hillary Clinton. NYC, San Francisco, and Los Angeles really, really, really wanted Hillary Clinton. The rest of the country, pretty much, did not. That is why so many analysts declared that Hillary Clinton did not resonate with the middle class, or parts of America like the Mid West. There are entire articles devoted to how the Democrat Party is one of coastal elites, and the poor in big cities, who are promised benefits, but they’ve lost the middle class and middle America. Perhaps you and Natacha should look into this, how the Constitution works, and why we have a republic.

        Otherwise, we would be the United States of New York and California.

        1. No, Karen. A handful of rural areas whose views were manipulated by a social media disinformation campaign directed by Russia with the help of the Trump campaign, should not get to impose their will on the majority of Americans. Trump was losing in the polls because most of Americans preferred Hillary Clinton. She won the popular vote by a 3 million plurality. The polls were not wrong–they just didn’t and couldn’t account for the interference by Russian hackers. Why did the Trump campaign feed sensitive insider polling information to the Russians and then try to lie about it? Why do you think that McConnell refuses to call for a vote multiple bills passed by the House to ensure the integrity of future elections? Republicans are losing ground badly. You are wrong about the influence of Republicans nationally–the results of the 2018 elections prove this.

          Maybe you should read the Mueller Report. I’ve suggested this to you before, but you would rather have Hannity, Tucker and Ingraham tell you what to think and what it says. They lie when they tell you: “no collusion….no obstruction”. They have to use simple-to-understand catch phrases to keep disciples like you who don’t bother to think for themselves. There is nothing within the founding of our republic that validates any candidate cheating with the help of a hostile foreign government to “win” office. You allegedly live in California. Guess what? That makes you a “coastal elite”. I live in the rust belt. That makes me a “flyover” state. The phraseology of “us Americans vs. coastal elites” is used to manipulate the beliefs of people like you who didn’t go to college, but who like to think they are knowledgeable.

          1. Natasha, Hillary’s margin – or less – elected 11 previous presidents of the US. Apologists like Karen would be singing another tune if they lose even one election via the EC with the popular vote. Given they have lost 6 of the last 7, that is not likely.

            The BS about only big state votes won’t count is so illogical as to be demented. The EC makes any state not a battleground state irrelevant. Direct vote makes every vote equally important and 100 Des Moines can beat out 1 Dallas or LA. Republicans in NY or Vermont, or Democrats in Montana and Texas can stay home now – their vote is meaningless.

            1. Anon – under any system, there would be battleground states.

              Under the EC, swing states are battleground states. If a state is ignored for too long, it becomes a swing state. This is why the composition of swing states changes. If CA was ignored long enough, it could become a battleground state.

              If the EC were abolished, or an end run expanded to all 50 states so that it went to the winner of the national popular vote, then there would still be a handful of battle ground states – except this time, it would always be the the ones with the largest populations. The other states would always be ignored.

              Democrats are just doing this for political advantage. That’s it.

              Natacha – Your post was an error filled rant.

              “manipulate the beliefs of people like you who didn’t go to college”. Why do you fabricate things about me? It makes you look so desperate. Unlike you, the explanation of my background has never changed, not for years. Yes, I have a degree.

              Your constant harping on Fox, Hannity, et al is hysterical. You have a problem.

              Hillary Clinton is an unpopular candidate. Democrats refused to acknowledge her baggage, to their detriment. People used to say she was the “most qualified candidate in history.” You don’t hear that anymore. In fact, she is viewed as a liability.

              In the #MeToo movement, her behavior towards Bill’s mistresses, and women who claimed were assaulted or harassed by him, haunts her. The Clintons used to be an unstoppable political machine, so above the law that Hillary could smash her cell phones while under subpoena with impunity.

              This article, decidedly against Trump, provides the Democrat perspective on why Hillary lost, and the Clinton legacy.

              http://inthesetimes.com/article/19674/hillary-clinton-democratic-party-neoliberal-trump

              1. Karen , without the EC, or an EC which awarded votes proportionally, states would be irrelevant and there would therefore be no battle ground states.

                This is not difficult. Smarten up.

          1. Anon – there were 51 elections all around the country to determine the electoral votes. Trump won a majority of those.

            The President must represent the entire country, care about the entire country. Hence, the electoral college in our Constitution. With a straight popular vote, only a handful of voting districts would decide the President, forever. The rest would never matter.

            It has been explained to you that it is vitally important for a President to win over the entire country, not just the coast elites.

            The fact is, you just don’t care. And that is not a good thing.

    1. “You don’t even have to be convicted of a crime to lose your job in this constitutional republic if this body determines that your conduct as a public official is clearly out of bounds in your role. Impeachment is not about punishment. Impeachment is about cleansing the office. Impeachment is about restoring honor and integrity to the office.”

      Lindsay Graham 1999

      1. yeah ok, great! if the Dems want to bring back honor in the eyes of the average person, they’re going to have to do a lot more than impeach Trump. right now they’re pursuing him like so many little Captain Ahabs.

      2. Anon, since impeachment is not a criminal process, it is intuitively obvious that one does not have to be convicted of a crime to be impeached. A criminal conviction is not a prerequisite.

        Were you not aware of this?

    2. RSA, Clinton’s approval rating hovered near 70% for most of 1998 (the year of Lewinsky). By contrast, Trump’s current approval is about 45%. Big difference.

  7. J Biden has not given a single interview since the Ukraine accustaion surfaced. This from a Presidential candidate.

    Predictable

    https://www.foxnews.com/media/giuliani-kurtz-interview-biden-family-allegations

    “Unfortunately, Biden hasn’t given an interview since the Ukraine story broke. I know he wants to avoid a mud fight with Trump, but I think he should be on TV every day, defending himself and framing this as a two-man contest. But even his campaign aides aren’t coming on the air.

    Instead, Biden attacks Trump in speeches, and in a Washington Post op-ed, but avoids having to talk about Hunter’s buckraking. Some Biden allies are calling it “a case study in indecision,” the New York Times reports.

    1. Biden, who can blame him? What’s he going to say? I should have told son to quit? My bad.

      Or, “this was just a small thing and now Nancy Pelosi has made a mountain out of a molehill by taking Trumps’ bait”

      or “I say skip impeachment and let me whip him in the election!”

      THE LAST THING IS THE ONLY SMART THING HE COULD SAY. BUT HE WONT. HE LACKS NERVE

      DEM IN CONGRESS STABBED HIM IN THE BACK. Biden was the best bet against Trump. He is a good old boy. Well, sort of at least, more so than screechy Liz Warren.

      With this singularly bad strategy, they have more likely than ever, lost the election.

      You gotta feel bad for Bernie, had a heart attack and lost a kid in the midst of all this drama. He’s tough. Soldiers on. I would just have quit like that, forget it.

  8. The radical Dems are so deranged and short-term in their mentality, they forgot that impeachment gives the President legal powers to fight back. Pelosi knows that a partisan impeachment will open the floodgates to a Trump campaign to destroy her Party. She has seen him mow down opponents, and doesn’t want to bet the farm.
    But, she is surrounded with militant ideologues who cannot strategize, as they are deftly controlled by Trump on a daily basis. Pelosi would very much like to avoid a floor vote on impeachment, because she knows how Trump will flip it on her once hearings start.

  9. https://www.dailywire.com/news/intelligence-committee-ig-couldnt-account-for-the-18-day-gap-between-trumps-ukraine-call-and-the-whistleblowers-complaint

    The “whistleblower” (WB) waited 18 days to file a complaint.

    The WB claimed that Trump pressured Ukraine president Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate Joe Biden.

    The WB did not actually hear the phone call, and had no first hadn’t knowledge.

    The transcript of the conversation shows there was no pressure.

    Adam Schiff claimed he did not know the identity of the WB and that neither he nor his staff had spoken with him. He lied.

    The WB met with Schiff prior to filing the complaint. He did not disclose that contact in the complaint.

    The WB regulation was changed, lowering the requirement from First Hand to Second Hand knowledge just prior to the compliant. This allows people to file complaints about what they heard.

    The lawyers representing the WB run an organization, Whistleblower Aid, that solicits dirt on the President. The group offers free legal representation, rent and mortgage assistance, media coaching, and payment for doctors’ bills and counseling. It may violate ethics. “The American Bar Association’s rules for avoiding conflicts of interest say that lawyers “may not subsidize lawsuits or administrative proceedings brought on behalf of their clients, including making or guaranteeing loans to their clients for living expenses, because to do so would encourage clients to pursue lawsuits that might not otherwise be brought and because such assistance gives lawyers too great a financial stake in the litigation.””

    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/white-house/ukraine-whistleblowers-lawyers-work-for-group-that-offers-to-pay-officials-who-leak-against-trump

    youtu.be/T0Ja2-oXUXw

    This is another soft coup attempt by political activists unable to accept the result of the last election. We see it here on the blog, where some people claim that Trump didn’t really win, or he stole it, or that Hillary really won. The problem is when such activists abuse positions of power and authority. This is ugly.

    1. Out of curiosity, why is an 18-day gap a big deal? I would take a minute before putting my career and possibly life on the line against this corrupt President. That doesn’t seem to be a big deal. The 2nd Whistleblower took even longer (although he/she was allegedly “on the call” so all that “2nd hand argument” although all the information was backed up is meaningless.
      Admit it, if 100 people came forward by name, you’d insist they were all lying or had an ax to grind?

    2. Karen: you’re playing games with facts here. First, the whistleblower didn’t say there was “pressure”, which isn’t needed to prove a violation. The Ukrainian President was trying to save his country, and Trump, without any legal authority, cut off military aid appropriated by Congress to ask for a favor. THAT IS PRESSURE. Neither is quid pro quo required. Mere solicitation of assistance from a foreign government to help in a campaign is enough. The non-transcript summary proves the accuracy of what the WB reported. There is an actual transcript which has not yet been produced. Hummmm…. I wonder why.

      Secondly, the information provided by the WB has proven correct, and he had enough first-hand information to pass muster. Where did you get the idea that Schiff actually “met with” the WB? Where is the proof of this? Hannity’s rants do not constitute facts. None of the attacks against Schiff, the WB or his attorney change the facts, which are documented in the summary, non-transcript.

      Trump got the votes from the Electoral College so he’s occupying the White House, but he cheated with the help of Russian hackers. He will never be considered legitimate. Those are facts, and no number of firings of people like Dan Coats who refused to lie to help Trump is going to change the truth. Read the Mueller Report.

  10. “The letter emphasizes a lack of due process in the proceedings. The Constitution does not guarantee such rights…”

    Unfortunately, Professor Turley, that’s a distinction voters won’t make. I guarantee if you stopped 100 people on the street and asked, without mentioning any names, if a person accused of a crime should have the right to confront the accuser, cross examine witnesses, call defense witnesses and be guaranteed due process of law every one of the 100 would answer yes.

    During the Kavanaugh hearings the Democrats said he didn’t deserve a presumption of innocence because the hearing was not a trial. How did that work out for them?

    1. RSA sees the calculation clearly. Exactly!

      They process of impeachment is inherently political. And that is precisely why it can backfire like it did with Clinton.

      This time: worse!

    2. RSA: You don’t seem to understand that this is NOT a criminal proceeding. It is an impeachment proceeding provided for by the Constitution, which gives the House of Representatives authority to investigate whether a POTUS has committed high crimes or misdemeanors. The due process rights guaranteed by the Constitution do not apply to this investigation. The result of the investigation will not be a criminal prosecution. If The Donald is impeached, the matter will be referred to the Senate where he will be tried Due process rights don’t apply in the Kavanaugh proceeding, either, because that proceeding falls under the “advise and consent” requirement for members of Congress–a process whereby Congress examines the qualifications of a candidate for a lifetime appointment to the court of highest resort of the United States. He doesn’t have a voice in this process, which is exclusively the province of Congress.

      Your problem is that you watch Fox News, and this is some of the crap they harp on to get people like you fired up into believing that it is somehow “unfair” if Congress doesn’t just let Trump do what he wants without challenging him, or that it is somehow “unfair” that women who claimed to have been assaulted by Kavanaugh are allowed to present the facts of their allegations. They harp that the American people should be assailed with people like Trey Gowdy or Giuliani calling witnesses names, accusing them of lying and accusing Democrats of ulterior motives merely because Congress is following the procedure set forth in the Constitution for examining the qualifications and character of someone wanting a lifetime appointment to judge the legal rights of the citizens of the U.S.. You are being misled.

      As we speak, Turkey is invading northern Syria with the assistance of Russia. People may very well die because of this unfit narcissist who cheated, with the help of Russia, to get into the White House so that he can pretend to be powerful and successful. IMHO, he is paying back Putin for helping him cheat to “win the victory”, and that he made this move now before the federal marshals escort his fat ass out of the building.

      1. 60 million of lives have been slaughtered in America since Roe v Wade. Yeah, your heart bleeds over destroyed lives

      2. ha ha ha you just dont get it natch

        “The due process rights guaranteed by the Constitution do not apply to this investigation.”

        EXACTLY! IT’S UNFAIR.

        Which is why as a political question, IT’S A BIG LOSER.

        work on these simple words in your head and report back when you figure this out. Pelosi was way ahead of you guys when she was telling you this was not the way to go. You pressured her into it and now you’ve taken this from the frying pan into the fire. Have fun dancing with the devil he has a combover hairdo and can stand the heat, can you?

      3. Natacha:

        You said “It is an impeachment proceeding provided for by the Constitution”

        As a nurse AND a lawyer, you should understand that this requires a vote. It might also be time to consult with a mental health professional about your obsession with Fox News.

      4. OK, if the Constitution gives “the House of Representatives the authority to investigate” whether there’s been an impeachable offense, let “the House of Representatives” vote to do do.
        Pelosi, Nadler, and Schiff are not “the House of Representatives”.

        1. “It must be noted that the impeachment process House Democrats have put in place is unlike any other in U.S. history,” Rep. Jim Banks, R-Ind., observed. “In stark contrast, we haven’t had a vote this time. Speaker Pelosi, Rep. Adam Schiff and other Democrat leaders have acted unilaterally. They’ve written their own rules, held secret hearings and wielded committee power without any input from rank and file members.”

          That discrepancy has not been lost on the White House.

          “In the history of our Nation, the House of Representatives has never attempted to launch an impeachment inquiry against the President without a majority of the House taking political accountability for that decision by voting to authorize such a dramatic constitutional step,” White House counsel Pat Cipollone wrote

Leave a Reply