Skip to content

Month: August 2019

Shamelessness is a seriousness political advantage

Shamelessness is a serious political advantage

by digby

For anyone thinking that after everything we know about the overwhelming corruption and graft of the Trump business and his administration, the Republicans wouldn’t have the balls to attack Democrats with the kind of thin gruel they threw at Clinton (emails!) think again:

Let’s see if the media takes the bait again. If they do you can expect that by this time next year, the public will believe that the Democrat is equally corrupt as Trump, probably more, simply because of the combination of media attention and relentless GOP trolling. The GOP has no shame and hypocrisy is a joke to them.

Reminder:

.

Booker was right

Booker was right

by digby



Via Think Progress:

Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) claimed during Wednesday night’s presidential debate that President Donald Trump won Michigan in 2016 because Republicans and Russians worked to suppress the votes of African Americans.

Election experts say he’s onto something.

“We lost the state of Michigan because everybody from Republicans to Russians were targeting the suppression of African American voters. We need to say that,” Booker said during the second night of the second set of debates, in Detroit.

“If the African American vote was four years earlier we would have won the state of Michigan,” he continued. “We need to have a campaign that is ready for what’s coming, an assault especially on the highest-performing voter group in our coalition, which is black women.”

Reports from former special counsel Robert Mueller and the Senate Intelligence Committee outlined how a “troll farm” called the Internet Research Agency, which has close ties to the Kremlin, made a coordinated effort on social media to suppress the black vote in 2016. African Americans tend to vote overwhelmingly for Democrats.

There is reason to believe those Russian efforts worked. A new study from researchers at the University of Tennessee found that social media posts and disinformation spread by Russian troll farms influenced how Americans responded to opinion polls before the 2016 election.

Michigan voters were also hampered that year by Republican legislative maneuvers to suppress minority turnout.

Last November, Michigan voters passed sweeping voting rights laws that make it possible to vote absentee without providing a reason, allow people to register to vote on Election Day, and allow residents to automatically enroll to vote at the Department of Motor Vehicles.

However, those laws were not in place in 2016, when turnout was low among college students, African American and Latinx voters — by the hundreds of thousands — according to Sharon Dolente, a voting rights strategist for the ACLU of Michigan.

“Michigan’s entire system of voting was so arcane during 2016 that it suppressed a number of voters,” Dolente said. “Most of the changes we have now made would have significantly increased turnout beyond the margins in 2016. I don’t know how they would have voted but it would have been more than 11,000 voters. So the outcome could have been different.”

Democratic lawmakers introduced a number of bills that would have allowed no-reason absentee ballot voting before the 2016 election. However, Republicans — who took control of the state’s House, Senate, and governor’s office over an eight-year period starting in 2011, thanks in part to gerrymanderingblocked those bills from passing. Republicans argued that any reform must include a restrictive in-person voter ID requirement.

Voter ID mandates have traditionally been a pet cause of Republican lawmakers, who have at times acknowledged that such laws would give them an edge at the ballot box.
[…]
There are also lingering questions about whether the votes of many black Michiganders were actually counted in 2016. On Election Day, more than 80 voting machines in Detroit malfunctioned, raising questions about the accuracy of election results in 59% of the majority-black city’s precincts.

The ballot-box failure itself was caused by the severe underfunding of America’s election system, said Myrna Pérez, director of the Voting Rights and Elections Program at the Brennan Center for Justice. A shortage of poll workers and voting machines prompts long voting lines and longer waits at precincts in minority communities.

Due to those shortages, elections officials often don’t recognize issues with polling machines until Election Day, Dolente said.

Also some Michigan poll workers incorrectly told voters that they needed to show identification to vote, according to another study by the Center for American Progress. It is unclear how many people lost their opportunity to vote as a result.

In addition, just weeks before the 2016 election, Trump urged his supporters to monitor polling places to ensure that voter fraud and election rigging did not occur. Dolente said that while she defends poll-watching, she and other election advocates feared Trump’s comments would stir up violence.

“There was a concern of heightened violence at the polls… I think that also could have been a very suppressing impact on people of color,” Dolente said. “That is voter suppression.”

The extent of the suppression isn’t entirely clear. But experts believe it had some impact.

“It’s really hard to say whether things like this affect the outcome of any given election,” said Jonathan Diaz, legal counsel at the Campaign Legal Center, a voting-rights group. “But Sen. Booker is certainly correct that voter suppression played a role in the 2016 presidential election.”

Also Michigan was one of the states for which Paul Manafort shared vter data with Konstantin Kilimnik for no apparent reason.

It’s totally fair to speculate that Trump’s tiny, tiny victory in the state benefitted from GOP vote suppression and Russian interference. Indeed, it’s almostcertain that Trump wouldn’t have won there without it.

.

Inspiration by the numbers by @BloggersRUs

Inspiration by the numbers
by Tom Sullivan

Any Democrat who wins the White House in 2020 will face tough odds of passing any of the policy proposals promised on the stump. Under-promise and over-deliver is good advice for building credibility in the business world. Politicians do the opposite.

“As far as I can tell, Congress is broken and nothing can fix it other than the Democrats winning 60 or maybe more Senate seats,” Martin Longman wrote this week at Washington Monthly. Not to mention how much in four years Donald Trump and Mitch McConnell will have skewed the courts. The particular details of this candidate’s health care plan or that one’s are not all that relevant in an age of gridlock, Longman warns:

Under these circumstances, every promise a presidential candidate makes that requires Congress to act is likely to be a broken promise. I don’t think it’s a great idea to compile a large record of broken promises. But what really makes no sense is to propose things that are incredibly unpopular with the key groups the Democrats need to win that have no prospect of being enacted. Doing that gets you a general campaign liability and a broken promise if you nevertheless win, and the tradeoff is at best that you excite a segment of the electorate that is going to vote for you anyway, assuming they vote at all. And then you’ll disappoint this group and expect them to show up for the first midterm election.

First, you’ve got to get them to show up in 2020.

Simon Rosenberg presents a case at Medium for why voters under 45 will increasingly turn towards Democrats. Someone born in 1974 saw exploding deficits and the first Iraq way during the Reagan-Bush years, followed by budget surpluses and the growth of the Internet under Bill Clinton, followed by 9/11, a second Iraq war and financial collapse under Bush II, followed by the election of Barack Obama and an improving economy and Obamacare, followed by a white-nationalist backlash, Donald J. Trump, plus “trillions in tax cuts to those who needed it the least, threatening health care for tens of millions, subjecting women and kids to inhumane conditions at the border, and tearing at the country’s broader social fabric though his relentless attacks on women and people of color.” Rosenberg elides a few details along the way, but he’s rolling.

His main argument is the lived experience of younger Americans among a more diverse population seeking greater equality orients them towards Democrats:

Not surprisingly, all of this has led to what is becoming a truly consequential divide in American politics — voters under 45 have become overwhelmingly Democratic. While these voters had been trending more Democratic in recent years, in 2018 there was an unprecedented and consequential shift among them. In the elections from 2000 to 2016, the Democrats beat the Republicans among under 45s by an average of 6 points, with Republicans even besting the Dems in 2000, 2002, and 2004. In the 2010 and 2014 midterms, the Dem margin was just 2 and 5 points, and in the 2016 general election it was 14 points. In 2018, however, the Democratic advantage in this group exploded to 25 points, 58–33. Over 45s were 50–49 for the Republicans, so these younger Americans were responsible for the entire margin in the Democratic 9 point win last year.

The future is Democratic and under-45, Rosenberg argues, if Democrats will just orient campaigns towards engaging those voters and turning them out. There’s the rub.

Arrayed against them is a cynical Republican Party that saw this trend first. Republicans have devoted considerable resources to retooling what used to be a more or less democratic process to one that secures them in power with minority support. Not to mention, they have spent decades undermining confidence in elections and in turning voters against government itself. Former Republican Congressional staffer Mike Lofgren described the strategy in 2011:

A couple of years ago, a Republican committee staff director told me candidly (and proudly) what the method was to all this obstruction and disruption. Should Republicans succeed in obstructing the Senate from doing its job, it would further lower Congress’s generic favorability rating among the American people. By sabotaging the reputation of an institution of government, the party that is programmatically against government would come out the relative winner.

Republicans employ a similar strategy in passing vote suppression measures. They will hurt Republican voters too, primarily Republican women. The G.O.P. is playing percentages. Harming their own voters is fine so long as the net effect is they hurt Democrats more. Their own voters are acceptable casualties.

The cynicism engendered by all this is palpable among younger voters. Percentage-wise, turnout spiked among younger voters in 2018. Still, older voters run the show.

I created the chart at the top last fall to track early turnout in North Carolina by age against population. (You’ve seen it before and will likely see versions again.) Might under-45 Americans participate more if they saw they have the demographic clout to make the changes they seek? Chicken-and-egg: Do people under 45 vote less because they think voting won’t change anything, or does nothing change because they don’t vote? North Carolina is not atypical. They have the numbers to take charge. They just have to exercise the power they already have.

Yes, Democrats need to offer younger Americans more reason to participate. But the greater reason they should vote is because they can wrest control from those now wrecking their futures if they do. And maybe not just save this country, but make it one worth saving. A 29 year-old Latina from the Bronx challenged the status-quo last year and took a congressional seat from the older white guy from the local Democratic machine. Now she holds power. Here’s hoping her peers find inspiration there. They might even flip a few Senate seats and prevent another Brett Kavanaugh.

As I predicted, dirt on Ratcliffe forced him to withdraw as DNI #ExtremeVettingFail @spockosbrain

As I predicted, dirt on Ratcliffe forced him to withdraw as DNI #ExtremeVettingFail 
by Spocko

Five days after Trump suggested Rep. John Ratcliffe for Director of National Intelligence, Ratcliffe withdrew himself from consideration.

Trump announced Ratcliffe’s withdrawal by presidential tweet five days after the Texas congressman was suggested by presidential tweet as Director of National Intelligence. Image from: AP Vice News

This follows a predictable pattern that I wrote about right here at Hullabaloo on July 28th (What dirt will journalists find on DNI nominee Ratcliffe?

1) Trump sees someone on TV, likes what he sees, BAM! Nominee!

2) The White House staff doesn’t know who Trump is going to suggest for a job, so they have no time to vet them.

3) The media does the vetting for the White House, and gets opinions on the candidate from the GOP and gauges the level of push back from Dems. If GOP senators or congress have issues with the person they are quiet or bring it up vaguely.

4) When the media dig up real problems, like scandals, the nominee withdraws.

5) Trump keeps looking for his Bill Barr/Roy Cohn for key positions. Trump needs someone smart enough not to be caught in a scandal and craven enough to want to work for Trump.

This “intention to nominate” process gives Trump a way to slow down the real nomination process. Meanwhile, Trump has another acting director he can push around.

I don’t want to make this sound like this is a strategic process for Trump. It’s not. He does what he does, sees someone defending him on TV and wants to reward them with a job, whatever is available at the time.

However, as we have seen time and time again, this usually ends up hurting the person offered the position.

If Trump went to this staff and said, “I like this Ratcliffe guy! Let’s make him DNI.” They might have said, “Okay, let’s check him out first. Remember what happened with Dr. Ronnie Jackson?”
Trump: Who?
Staff: Your doctor. You nominated him to head the VA and the media found problems. Let’s vet him first.
Trump: No. Ratcliffe has been elected many many times, and people say he’s perfect for the position. If there were problems I would have heard of them by now. Coats is out. I want Ratcliffe in, now. I’m tweeting.

When writing about this 5 whole days ago, I found out that over 60 people Trump nominated had to withdraw. There is a whole page dedicated to it. With photos and everything!

List of Donald Trump nominees who have withdrawn

In the past administrations would vet, then do trial balloons of names. The staff might wish it was still that way, but they let Trump be Trump.

The White House non-vetting process reveals scandals candidates were involved in they hid before. Some might never had been uncovered until they were put in the spotlight.

Remember when he nominated his personal physician to head the VA? That was sweet. Payback for saying Trump weighed 239?

 What Ronny was thinking, “Tell the press I’m 6 foot 3, 239 pounds.” HA! Yeah, right. As if they would believe me vs their own eyes. photo: Jabin Botsford /The Washington Post

Trump thought bubble,”Is something funny Jackson? You tell people my real weigh or I’ll have Pence’s wife rat you out. Photo Jabin Botsford /The Washington Post

On April 26, 2018, Jackson withdrew his nomination as Secretary of Veterans Affairs. He returned to duty with the White House Medical Unit but will no longer serve as Physician to the President. On February 2, 2019, President Trump appointed Jackson to serve as Assistant to the President and Chief Medical Advisor, a new position in the Executive Office. Wikipedia

Sorry about the whole VA thing. You’ll keep getting me the Adderall, right? Photo: Carolyn Kaster / AP

If the shoe fits

If the shoe fits

by digby

I’m sorry these people won’t admit that what Trump is doing is racist, divisive and ugly. I’m sorry they feel the need to cheer him on when he does it. If they aren’t racist themselves, I’m sorry they have no self-awareness and understand that he is one. But it is on them to do a little soul searching and ask themselves if they really believe that Trump’s endless insults toward black, brown and female people are just because all those people are uniquely bad or if maybe he’s got another agenda.

Donald Trump’s supporters would like to be clear: They are tired of being called racists.

Leave it to the president’s eldest son to set the tone. Last night at the 17,500-person-capacity U.S. Bank Arena downtown here, Donald Trump Jr. strode onto the stage two hours before the president was scheduled to speak. The venue was already brimming.

It had been a rough week for his father. On July 28, President Trump was once again deemed racist after lashing out at House Oversight Chairman Elijah Cummings, whose district includes part of Baltimore. Trump referred to the city 40 miles north of Washington as “a disgusting, rat and rodent infested mess” in which “no human being would want to live.” Those comments came shortly after the president suggested that four progressive congresswomen of color “go back” to the “totally broken and crime infested places from which they came,” prompting the crowd at his July 17 rally in Greenville, North Carolina, to chant, “Send her back!” Trump—though he later disavowed the chant—did nothing to stop it.

Last night, Trump supporters in Cincinnati were eager to defend their man.

“It’s amazing that when Donald Trump makes a comment about Baltimore, it’s racist, it’s terrible, it’s this. But when the mayor of that town, when the congressman from that town, says the exact same thing, ‘Oh! No problem!’” Trump Jr. boomed, referring to a statement that Cummings made in 1999, calling Baltimore “drug-infested.”

MORE STORIES

What Elijah Cummings Once Told Trump in PrivatePETER NICHOLAS

The GOP Finally Rejects TrumpRUSSELL BERMAN

Ben Carson’s Appearance in Baltimore Didn’t Go as PlannedPETER NICHOLAS

Will Hurd Could Be the Canary in the Coal MineRUSSELL BERMAN

Read: Two nights, two very different ways of talking about race

“It’s sad,” he continued, “that using ‘racism’ has become the easy button of left-wing politics. All right? Because guess what? It still is an issue … But by making a mockery of it by saying every time you can’t win a fight—‘Oh! We’re just gonna push the button! It’s racist’—you hurt those that are actually afflicted by it. People hear it, they roll their eyes, and they walk on. And that’s a disgrace, and that’s what you’ve been given in the identity politics of the left.”

The crowd erupted in jeers and boos. It was a segment of Jr.’s speech that in many ways echoed that of a speaker who’d appeared before him, Brandon Straka, a gay Trump supporter who founded the WalkAway movement to encourage people to leave the Democratic Party. “Insinuations of bigotry and racism,” Straka claimed, were “divisive tactics” used by the “liberal media to control minorities in this country.” “This is a president who serves minorities,” he said, “because he loves minorities.”

As speakers mounted their defenses of the president, it seemed apparent that supporters were cheering them on as a means of affirming not just Trump, but also themselves. Because to accuse a politician of holding virulent racist beliefs is also, if only implicitly, to condemn his or her voters of harboring those same tendencies.

And that’s what the rally-goers I spoke to last night seemed most nonplussed by—not so much that Trump had been roundly condemned in recent days as a racist, or a bigot, but that they, by virtue of association, had been as well. But rather than distancing them from Trump, the accusations have only seemed to strengthen their support of this president. To back down, they suggested, would be to bow down to the scourge of political correctness.

“We’re all tired of being called racists,” a 74-year-old bespectacled white man named Richard Haines told me. “You open your mouth, you’re a racist. My daughter is a liberal, and she’s [using the word] all the time. We don’t talk politics; we can’t—all the time she always accuses me of hate.”

[…]

Before the rally began, I sat down on the floor of the arena with two women—Roseanna, 50, and Amy, 48—who felt similarly. (Neither woman was comfortable providing her last name for this story.) Roseanna, who wore a red T-shirt, white shorts, and a MAGA hat adorned with multiple buttons, including one featuring the likeness of Hillary Clinton behind bars, had driven an hour and a half from Lexington, Kentucky. She defended Trump’s statements about Baltimore. “He didn’t say nothing about the color of somebody’s skin,” Roseanna said, yet it seemed like everyone was “wishing him toward ‘He’s a bigot.’

“I’m sick to death of it. I have 13 grandchildren—13,” she continued. “Four of them are biracial, black and white; another two of them are black and white; and another two of them are Singapore and white. You think I’m a racist? I go and I give them kids kisses like nobody’s business.”

Oy. I guess her grandkids are “the good ones.” Not like those others …

I know it’s hard to admit you are wrong. It’s not easy for anyone. But they need to take a long look in the mirror and ask themselves if they really believe that Trump isn’t a racist or if they are just making excuses for him. They need to ask themselves if they know what Trump really “means” when he says these things, if they recognize it, if it’s not something they’ve felt themselves about people of color.

If they do that and come out believing that Trump truly is not a racist then we know that they are too.

He is. That’s a fact. And there’s a reason why the Republicans have one black Senator, just lost their only black congressman and is hemorrhaging women and Latinos. It’s not because Trump and his followers are being falsely accused. People know what they are seeing.

As I said, it’s on them, not the rest of us. It really is.

.

It’s the pathological narcissism

It’s the pathological narcissism 

by digby

The president simply cannot see the world in any terms but his own reflection. This is why we have bizarre and dangerous administration foreign policy with allies and adversaries alike. It’s all about him.

This piece by Timothy O’Brien spells it all out in living color:

President Donald Trump started the week with a Rose Garden ceremony that should have been nothing more than a dignified commemoration of the sacrifices made by firefighters, police and other first responders who rushed to Ground Zero in lower Manhattan after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

On Thursday night, he was back on his favorite territory: A rally of political supporters at an arena in Cincinnati, Ohio, that really needed to offer much more than what we’re accustomed to hearing from him at these gatherings.

The president failed to deliver at both events. This should remind voters who Trump is and the challenges he faces as the outlines of the 2020 presidential campaign become clearer and the shape of his opposition from Democrats comes into focus.

The gathering Trump hosted at the White House Monday was straightforward and meant to be bracing and reaffirming for everyone involved. The president was on hand to sign a bill into law that would provide permanent medical care and compensation to the Sept. 11 responders. But he couldn’t help himself. A compassionate speech sounded all the right, sympathetic notes until he made it about himself.

“I was down there also, but I’m not considering myself a first responder,” Trump said of the site where the World Trade Center once stood. “But I was down there. I spent a lot of time down there with you.”

Oof. Not true. And by inserting himself into history and into a moment that quite properly belonged to the emergency services themselves, Trump shifted attention from the ceremony and onto himself. A wave of fact-checking and media reports followed. There was no evidence that he spent any meaningful time at Ground Zero, nor that he had, as he claimed on the campaign trail in 2016, helped “clear the rubble” there while he worried that the buildings would collapse on “all of us.” There was no evidence to support his fable that he sent more than 100 of his own workers to help at the site or his lie about seeing thousands of Muslims in New Jersey celebrating the attack. Trump did take time on Sept. 11 to say that the collapse of the World Trade Center would make one of his buildings the tallest in Manhattan’s financial district. That wasn’t true, either.

On Tuesday evening, Barbara Res, a former Trump Organization executive, told MSNBC that Trump’s use of tragedies to promote himself wasn’t limited to Sept. 11. She said he’d also lied about narrowly avoiding dying in a helicopter crash in 1989 that killed three of his casino executives. I noted in a tweet on Thursday that the families of two of those executives, Steve Hyde and Mark Etess, also knew that Trump lied about avoiding the crash – and that he did so to get media attention for himself after their deaths instead of just honoring them.

My tweet prompted George Conway, a lawyer and prominent Trump critic, to post an article on Twitter recalling that the eulogy Trump delivered at his own father’s funeral in 1999 was largely self-referential. I knew this to be true and responded to Conway with some details about the eulogy that Alan Marcus, a former Trump adviser, had shared with me. Trump began the eulogy, Marcus recalled, more or less like this: “I was in my Trump Tower apartment reading about how I was having the greatest year in my career in the New York Times when the security desk called to say my brother Robert was coming upstairs.” Marcus said “there was an audible gasp” from mourners stunned by Trump’s self-regard. (My exchanges with Conway resulted in the creation of a Twitter hashtag, #TrumpEulogies, featuring satirical, fictional and self-referential funeral orations from the president).

Trump’s self-absorption has been profound of late. He has invited widespread criticism (except from members of his own political party) for weeks of hostile, racist comments directed at Democrats of color. He has pushed for brutal confrontations with migrants on the U.S.’s southern border to solve a humanitarian crisis created by his own policies. He’s escalated a trade war with China even though the impact of the battle lands most heavily and adversely on the consumers and farmers Trump should be courting for his 2020 bid. He has harangued the Federal Reserve relentlessly to lower interest rates and the Fed did so for the first time in a decade on Wednesday. While Trump’s lobbying could be motivated by his own macroeconomic insights, it’s hard not to wonder if he’s strong-arming the Fed to juice the economy so it and securities markets remain buoyant ahead of the 2020 election.

At his Cincinnati rally Thursday night Trump unspooled familiar themes. In a flood of self-aggrandizing talking points, he attacked the Democrats, the media, the judiciary, Hillary Clinton, and Robert Mueller; extolled the virtues of supporters who adore him; slagged the city of Baltimore and the state of California for the umpteenth time; invented some new history for Russia; dumped on immigrants; took credit for legislation helping military veterans that Barack Obama actually signed; and pledged to “keep America great.” Oh, and he promised to cure cancer.

There was a lot in that Cincinnati grab bag that appealed to the president’s most loyal fans. It’s not clear, though, whether any of the bombast helps Trump expand his electoral franchise beyond his base or makes his case effectively to voters in a handful of swing states in the Midwest and elsewhere that will probably determine who wins the White House in 2020.

It’s always a mistake to assume Trump thinks strategically rather than viscerally, anyhow. And his Cincinnati rhetoric is in keeping with his Rose Garden performance on Monday and the eulogy he delivered at his father’s funeral 20 years ago: Narcissistic and self-serving. Trump is being Trump, and it’s not certain that the circumstances that allowed him to get away with that in 2016 will be so accommodating this time around. If the less committed voter has tired of the act, Trump’s self-worship may prove to be self-defeating.

From his lips to god’s ears.

I mean:

.

Little Donnie Trump 8 years old

Little Donnie Trump 8 years old

by digby

I’m sorry. People who like this juvenile nonsense from our immature president are jerks. There’s just no excuse for it.

This follows Trump’s recent description of Baltimore as a “rat and rodent infested mess.”

Baltimore, however, is not the only large U.S. city that Trump has been defaming. This week at a campaign rally in Cincinnati, Trump not only attacked Baltimore again, but also, other Democrat-dominated cities such as Los Angeles and San Francisco. After asserting that Baltimore had higher homicide rates than El Salvador, Honduras and Guatemala, he went on to describe Los Angeles and San Francisco as cities plagued by widespread homelessness.

Trump was trying to send out a message that cities run by Democrats are inherently dysfunctional — never mind the fact that major U.S. industries, from finance to technology, are largely concentrated in cities that Democrats dominate.

A divide between the interests of rural and urban citizens isn’t new. I’m pretty sure it’s been around for millennia. But I don’t think we’ve ever had a president who exploited it so crudely. Coming, as it does, from a man whose entire identity is based upon being the self-styled king of the biggest city in America makes it downright weird.

Are his followers totally immune to the overwhelming dissonance of his messages?

.

Impeachment August will tell the tale

Impeachment August will tell the tale

by digby

My Salon column this morning:

The presidential oath of office is just one sentence:

I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

“Preserve, protect and defend” can be open to interpretation and many of us will have different ideas of what that might mean. But I don’t think there’s anyone in the country, of any political stripe, who does not think that the president has a sworn obligation to protect the nation from attack by a foreign nation. It’s the most important duty of the job.

Over the last two years we have learned through testimony from all the top federal law enforcement officials and directors of the Intelligence agencies that the nation’s elections system — its democracy — was interfered with and sabotaged by Russian cyber-attacks in 2016 and 2018. They all say it will happen again in 2020. This conclusion has been backed up by the congressional intelligence committees and the report from special counsel Robert Mueller. There have been examples of similar attacks in other countries, including our European allies. There is evidence that there’s been collaboration between political players in the U.S. and elsewhere and agents or representatives of the Russian government. It is assumed that Russia’s success will be seen as an invitation for other adversaries such as China, North Korea and Iran, all of which have demonstrated a capacity to launch similar attacks.

There really isn’t any serious dispute that it happened. The question is whether the government is doing everything in its power to stop it from happening again. Unfortunately, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., is blocking legislation designed to stop it.

And on Thursday, President Trump made it clear that he will do absolutely nothing to stop any further electoral cyber-attacks from happening:

It’s hard to overstate how serious that is. Donald Trump denied that Russia is currently interfering in our elections, contradicting his own government experts and outside observers. It’s always been possible that Trump denied that it happened in 2016 simply because he believed that would call his own legitimacy into question. But insisting that it won’t happen in 2020 is a different thing altogether. Any foreign country has to see our president turning a blind eye as a green light to further incursions. After two and a half years of being immersed in this issue, no one can excuse Trump by saying he doesn’t understand that this is a betrayal of his oath of office.

If a sitting president who virtually invites a foreign adversary to intervene in his re-election isn’t worthy of an impeachment inquiry, literally nothing is.

When Mueller delivered his testimony last week, most pundits dismissed it as a dud that didn’t change anything. That is beginning to look like an incorrect assessment. The political sands are shifting. Six Republican members of Congress have announced their retirements in the last two weeks. None of them have named the Russia issue as their reasoning, of course. They are Republicans. But three of them, all from Texas districts that could plausibly be Democratic targets, are highly involved in intelligence and cyber-security matters. Rep. Mike Conaway is a powerful member of the House Intelligence Committee who handled the Russia probe when former chair Devin Nunes was forced to (sort of) recuse himself. Rep. Mike McCaul sits on the Homeland Security and Foreign Affairs committees. Rep. Will Hurd, the last remaining African American in the GOP caucus, is a former CIA officer with a special interest in cyber-security who sits on both the House Oversight and Intelligence committees.

Those could be a coincidences. Any Republican could be looking for reasons to abandon ship at this point. But consider what’s happened on the Democratic side, where 23 House members have come out in favor of launching an impeachment inquiry since Mueller testified, bringing the total to 118. A majority of the Democratic caucus now favors beginning a process that could lead to the impeachment of President Trump.

Rep. Ted Deutch, D-Fla., wrote in a recent op-ed that an impeachment inquiry is already underway:

In the past, a resolution directing the Judiciary Committee to consider impeachment was needed to grant the committee additional subpoena authority and financial resources. That was the official start of an impeachment inquiry. But times have changed. In 2015, Republican leaders gave committee chairs broad subpoena powers — powers that Chairman Nadler retains today. No additional step is required. No magic words need to be uttered on the House floor. No vote to authorize an impeachment inquiry is necessary.

There is a legal reason for declaring that an impeachment investigation is already happening, even though the full House hasn’t voted on it. Experts believe that will strengthen Democrats’ arguments in court as they try to break through the White House’s unprecedented stonewalling. But apparently, it’s a political decision as well. Rep. Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash., appeared on Chris Hayes’ MSNBC show on Thursday and said, “We see the Mueller testimony as an inflection point, a watershed, whatever you want to call it. It was the moment when Robert Mueller said, ‘Donald Trump has not been exonerated.'”

If they are serious about this, at some point the goal must go beyond endless hearings. If enough Democrats get on board (and, hypothetically, any Republicans with a spine), they must ultimately pass articles of impeachment and turn the case over to the Senate for trial. As for the fact that Trump will not be convicted in the Senate, presidential candidate Julián Castro explained exactly how to handle that in the CNN debate on Wednesday: “If Mitch McConnell lets him off, we’re going to say, sure. They impeached him in the House, his friend Mitch McConnell — ‘Moscow Mitch’ — let him off the hook.”

To that end, four grassroots groups — MoveOn, Need to Impeach, Stand Up America and Indivisible — are kicking in with a new initiative called Impeachment August, in which they exhort their members and others to find town halls and other events during the August recess to demand that their representatives support impeachment.

As for the public, they are still on the fence. People consistently say they don’t even want to hear about impeachment. But the vast majority of the public didn’t want to hear about Hillary Clinton’s emails either. They heard about them endlessly anyway, and there’s little doubt that issue was an albatross around her neck throughout the campaign. Impeachment could plague and damage Trump in much the same way.

If Democrats believe that the only way to hold Trump accountable for his crimes is to beat him at the ballot box, impeachment may be one of the very best tools they have to make sure that happens.

.