

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.

James Comey's testimony confirms that Donald Trump tried to obstruct justice. That is an impeachable offense. Impeachment takes time but we need to start the process now. It's time to call for impeachment hearings.
James Comey's testimony confirms that Donald Trump tried to obstruct justice. That is an impeachable offense. Impeachment takes time but we need to start the process now. It's time to call for impeachment hearings.
June 8, 2017. We should all remember this date, because it was the day when former FBI Director James Comey (a Republican) confirmed under oath what many of us already suspected and what the press has reported--that Donald Trump asked him to drop the investigation into disgraced former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn.
Obstruction of justice is an impeachable offense. Period. Let's be clear about what this means: the President of the United States knew that the FBI was investigating his associates, TRIED TO STOP THAT INVESTIGATION, and then fired the person who wouldn't stop it. This is obstruction of justice, a federal crime, and an impeachable offense. (See our explainer on obstruction of justice here.)
Don't believe us? Then trust Laurence Tribe, a former Supreme Court clerk, constitutional scholar, and professor of constitutional law at Harvard Law School. His assessment: "The time has come for Congress to launch an impeachment investigation of President Trump for obstruction of justice."
As Americans, we cannot afford to have a President who breaks the law. No one is above the law, not even the President--and the job of the Presidency is too important to trust it to someone who doesn't respect the basic rules of our democracy.
Impeachment is enshrined in the constitution. James Madison argued impeachment was "indispensable" to protect against the "incapacity, negligence or perfidy" of the president. The Constitution provides that "[t]he President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors."
Yes, obstruction of justice is one of those "high crimes and misdemeanors." President Bill Clinton was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice. And the very first article of impeachment against Nixon was similarly obstruction of justice. Obstruction of Justice is absolutely an impeachable offense.
After Watergate, in July of 1973, a Democratic Member of the House of Representatives introduced H.Res 513, legislation described as "Resolution impeaching Richard M. Nixon, President of the United States, of high crimes and misdemeanors." It took three months for the House Judiciary Committee to even begin considering impeachment. It took more than a year before Nixon left office, before the full House had even voted, and the Senate hadn't taken any action.
Bottom line: impeachment takes time. So if you want it done, you've got to get it started. And, it starts with impeachment hearings. Here's how the impeachment process works:
The House acts first, then the Senate. Both the House and Senate have a role to play. First, the House decides whether or not to impeach the President (essentially whether to "charge" the president). Each "charge" is referred to as an "article of impeachment." If the House votes to impeach, then the Senate holds a trial on each article of impeachment against the president.
Impeachment is only the beginning--it's not a conviction. It's worth noting here the difference between two terms that are often used interchangeably but do not mean the same thing. Being "impeached" only means that the House of Representatives voted to send articles of impeachment to the Senate for a trial. Being "removed from office" means that the Senate voted to convict the President.
No President has ever been impeached and then convicted by the Senate and removed from office. President Andrew Johnson (in 1868) and Bill Clinton (in 1998/1999) were impeached by the House but acquitted in the Senate; Richard Nixon resigned to avoid being impeached.
Despite the evidence from Mr. Comey's testimony that Trump obstructed justice, the hard truth is that Republicans have control of both the House and Senate. Some Republicans did join the call for a special prosecutor, who was appointed on May 17. This would have never happened without the immense pressure from the public and from Indivisible groups around the country. But politically speaking, most Republicans are not yet close to the point where they'll call for--or even allow--impeachment proceedings to begin. This is especially true for Republican leaders who control the process and have fallen in line with Trump on basically every issue so far.
We Need Both an Independent Commission and to Begin the Impeachment Process. What we do know is that Donald Trump obstructed justice. That is enough to begin the impeachment process, and your Representative should be calling for it. But there is still much left that we don't know, especially about connections between Trump associates and the Russian government. That's why it's important to call for both an independent commission, and to begin the impeachment process against Trump for the violations that we do know about. Remember, since the impeachment process will take time, we can still learn more if there is an independent commission continuing to investigate.
While we pressure Republicans to begin impeachment hearings, we must continue to oppose Trump's agenda more broadly. One of the best ways to increase the chances of Trump's impeachment is to drive a wedge between him and his party, by making it clear that Republicans can't accomplish their agenda in Congress as long as Trump is President.
Even as new information about the Trump camp's ties to Russia continues to come to light with each new week, the Administration and its allies in Congress are pushing forward with their terrible legislative agenda. The House is voting to gut financial consumer protections. Mitch McConnell is maneuvering in the Senate to fast track their health care bill. Especially given the dark cloud that now hangs over the Administration, it is more important than ever to stop every piece of the Trump agenda. In doing so, we stop the worst damage to our country and our institutions while ramping up the pressure for Republicans to split with Trump.
First and foremost, impeachment is a long game. We won't be getting hearings anytime soon, and even once we do, the impeachment process is likely to take a long time. That's why, in addition to opposing the Trump agenda more broadly, we need to be doing two things at once:
Impeachment won't happen overnight--it will be a long-term fight. And we will continue to demand that Congress do more, especially as more information comes to light. Until then, we must continue to focus on stopping Republicans and Trump from advancing other parts of their agenda, including repealing the ACA, attacking immigrants and people of color, threatening the environment, repealing consumer financial protections, and attacking reproductive rights, to name only a few. The list of things we need to protect is long, but if we stick together, if we stand indivisible, we will win.
Caller: Good morning/afternoon! Can you let me know [Senator/Representative Hernandez]'s position on creating an independent commission to get all the facts regarding the Trump campaign's possible collusion with Russia?
Staffer: Thank you for calling! [Senator/Representative Hernandez] supports H.R. 356 / S.27.
Caller: That's great! Thank you. I'm pleased to hear that [Senator/Representative Hernandez] supports creating an independent commission. It appears that by firing FBI Director Comey, Trump may have engaged in obstruction of justice--that's an impeachable offense. If [Senator/Representative Hernandez] is truly concerned about the integrity of our democracy, will s/he also support starting impeachment hearings for this apparent violation?
Staffer: I will certainly pass on your concerns to the Senator/Representative.
Caller: Please do, and please take down my contact information to let me know when the Senator/Representative has made up his/her mind. I'm eager to hear what he/she decides.
Staffer: Thank you for calling! [Senator/Representative Hernandez] opposes creating an independent commission. The Department of Justice already appointed former FBI Director Robert Mueller to serve as the special counsel investigating ties between Russia and the Trump campaign. We should let that investigation run its course.
Caller: That's not enough. Mueller's appointment was an important first step, but it is not nearly enough. Congress should pass legislation to create an independent commission to get a full and more transparent airing of the facts. I am disappointed that [Senator/Representative Hernandez] would choose to protect Trump rather than listen to his/her constituents
Staffer: Thank you for calling! I don't know what the Senator/ Representative's position is.
Caller: That's disappointing to hear--this is a critical issue for our democracy. Does [Senator/Representative Hernandez] think it's more important to protect Trump than listen to his/her own constituents? The appointment of Robert Mueller to serve as the special counsel investigating ties between Russia and the Trump campaign was an important first step, but it is not nearly enough. Congress should pass legislation to create an independent commission to get a full and more transparent airing of the facts.
Staffer: I didn't know that but I'm happy to take down your concerns.
Caller: Here's my concern: By firing FBI Director Comey, Trump appears to have engaged in obstruction of justice--that's an impeachable offense. If [Senator/Representative Hernandez] is truly concerned about the integrity of our democracy, will s/he also support starting impeachment hearings for this apparent violation?
Staffer: I will certainly pass on your concerns to the Senator/Representative.
Caller: Please do, and please take down my contact information to let me know when the Senator/Representative has made up his/her mind. I'm eager to hear what he/she decides.
Indivisible Project (501c4) drives coordinated campaigns, powering the grassroots Indivisible movement to defeat the rightwing takeover of American government and win an inclusive democracy and bold progressive policies.
"The real figure is much higher," said one UK lawmaker. "This is a 'ceasefire' in name only. The slaughter goes on."
After two years of denial and deception, the Israel Defense Forces acknowledged Wednesday for the first time that over 70,000 Palestinians have been killed in Gaza since October 2023, while continuing to deny the famine Israel caused by blocking humanitarian aid from entering the obliterated strip.
Israeli media including the Times of Israel, the Jerusalem Post, Haaretz, and others reported that the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) accepts the accuracy of the Hamas-run Gaza Health Ministry's (GHM) death toll, which currently stands at least 71,667, with more than 171,000 others wounded and 9,500 missing and presumed dead and buried beneath the rubble of bombed buildings.
"How many years did we spend screaming, with checked and re-checked figures, lists showing names and ID numbers, being told the numbers were completely fanciful despite rigorous, transparent verification, and now the IDF quietly accepts that they were correct all along," Beirut-based journalist Séamus Malekafzali said on X in response to the IDF admission.
Experts—including the authors of multiple peer-reviewed studies in the prestigious British medical journal The Lancet—assert that the actual death toll in Gaza is much higher than reported. Last June, a study published in Nature reported 84,000 deaths in Gaza. Others say the toll could be even higher, with one Economist study estimating between 77,000-109,000 Gazans killed by Israeli forces.
"We should not care what the IDF accepts or not—they perpetrated the genocide," said Jake Romm, the US representative for the Hind Rajab Foundation, which tracks suspected IDF war criminals and is named after a 5-year-old Palestinian girl massacred along with relatives and rescue workers by Israeli occupation forces on January 29, 2024. "Their communications are in service of that project."
"This is, in any event, an admission that will only be used to discredit the real, much higher death toll as the scale of the atrocity becomes known," Romm added.
Israeli academic Ori Goldberg was also skeptical of the IDF's admission, asserting on X: "'Accepts' means that even the vast network of lies no longer holds. If the IDF 'accepts' 70,000, it has killed innumerably more."
While the IDF accepted GHM's death toll, it argued that the famine in Gaza—which officially lasted from August-December 2025, according to the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification, the standard international framework for classifying food insecurity and malnutrition—did not happen.
GHM says at least 453 Palestinians, including 150 children, have died of malnutrition in Gaza since October 2023. The IDF contends that the figure is a mix of lies and misleading reporting about people who had preexisting health conditions before they starved to death.
However, famine experts contend that Israel orchestrated a carefully planned campaign of mass starvation in Gaza.
Throughout the war, Israeli leaders, their supporters abroad, and mainstream US media attempted to discredit GHM casualty figures by casting aspersions upon the "Hamas-run" ministry. This, despite Israeli military intelligence deeming the figures accurate and historical confirmations of their reliability.
"The phrase *Hamas* Health Ministry was used as a slur for years to signal unreliability, even though it was pointed out again and again that its numbers had always held up," noted journalist Jasper Nathaniel, adding sardonically that "I’m sure the 'Pallywood' crowd will be rushing to apologize today."
The International Center for Justice for Palestinians (ICJP) said on social media that "every media outlet that cast doubt over these figures with dogwhistling phrases like 'Hamas-run MoH' is complicit in these killings."
"In truth, the 71,000+ figure is conservative," ICJP added. "Palestinian bodies are buried under the rubble and can't be counted and many more have died from malnutrition due to Israel's deliberate starvation of Palestinians. Different tools, same outcome: Israeli genocide of Palestinians."
In the United States—which has supported Israel's annihilation of Gaza with tens of billions of dollars in armed aid and diplomatic cover including vetoes of numerous United Nations Security Council ceasefire resolutions during both the Biden and Trump administrations—the House of Representatives approved a bipartisan amendment in June 2024 that banned US officials from using State Department resources to cite GHM casualty figures.
The amendment's lead sponsor, Rep. Jared Moskowitz (D-Fla.)—whose all-time top campaign contributor is the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC)—contended that “at the end of the day, the Gaza Ministry of Health is the Hamas Ministry of Health."
Former President Joe Biden faced genocide denial accusations for casting aspersions upon GHM reports. President Donald Trump has also said he does not believe that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza.
A senior IDF official told the Times of Israel that the military is in the process of determining how many of the Gaza dead were members of Hamas or other militant groups.
While the Israeli government has claimed a historically low civilian-to-combatant kill ratio in Gaza, classified IDF intelligence data obtained last year during an investigation by Israeli journalist and filmmaker Yuval Abraham of +972 Magazine and Local Call and Guardian senior international affairs correspondent Emma Graham-Harrison revealed that 5 in 6 Palestinians—or 83%—killed by the IDF through the first 19 months of the US-backed war were civilians.
Former Israel Defense Forces Chief of Staff Herzi Halevi—who led the IDF through most of the war—acknowledged after retiring last year that "over 10%" of Gaza's population, or about 220,000 Palestinians, had been killed or wounded as of September 2025.
“This is not a gentle war," Halevi said at the time, "we took the gloves off from the first minute."
Following the Hamas-led October 7 attack on Israel, the IDF dramatically loosened its rules of engagement, effectively allowing an unlimited number of civilians to be killed when targeting a single Hamas member, no matter how low-ranking.
The IDF’s use of massive ordnance, including US-supplied 1,000- and 2,000-pound “bunker buster” bombs capable of leveling entire city blocks, and utilization of artificial intelligence to select targets has resulted in staggering numbers of civilian deaths, including numerous instances of dozens or more people being massacred in single strikes.
Through it all, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and other Israeli political and military leaders claimed that the IDF, "the most moral army in the world," went to great lengths to avoid harming civilians.
While Israeli leaders scoffed at war crimes allegations, South Africa filed a genocide case against Israel at the International Court of Justice in The Hague. The ICJ, a UN body, subsequently issued multiple provisional orders for Israel to prevent genocidal acts. Israel has been accused of ignoring these orders, and last September a panel of UN experts concluded that Israel was committing genocide in Gaza.
Later, the International Criminal Court issued arrest warrants for Netanyahu and former Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant for alleged crimes against humanity and war crimes in Gaza, including murder and forced starvation.
The killing isn't over. Since a tenuous ceasefire between Israel and Hamas took effect last October 10, Israeli forces have killed more than 500 Palestinians in over 1,200 violations of the truce. Palestinians—mostly children and infants—are also still dying of exposure to cold weather as Israel continues to restrict the entry of aid into Gaza.
"They said Palestinians were exaggerating. Lying. Propagandists," Independent UK Member of Parliament Shockat Adam said on X Thursday. "Now, even the IDF accepts 70,000+ killed in Gaza. The real figure is much higher. This is a 'ceasefire' in name only. The slaughter goes on."
"When we do get ICE out of Maine, it's important for people to understand that that came from below, that came from power from organizers, from a mobilized population," said Senate candidate Graham Platner.
At a rally outside Sen. Susan Collins' office on Thursday morning, soon after the Republican lawmaker claimed she had gotten assurances from the Trump administration that it would end its immigration enforcement surge in Maine, Democratic Senate candidate Graham Platner said he was not prepared to accept a "pinky promise" from the White House after the arrests of hundreds of Mainers in recent days.
"I don’t believe it,” Platner told a crowd of protesters. “I don’t take the word of an administration that continues to break the law. I don’t take the word of an administration that continues to stomp our constitutional rights. We need to see material change.”
Collins said in a statement Thursday morning that she had spoken with Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and received information that US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) "has ended its enhanced activities in the state of Maine"—adding the caveat that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) "does not confirm law enforcement operations."
"There are currently no ongoing or planned large-scale ICE operations here," said the senator. "ICE and Customs and Border Patrol will continue their normal operations that have been ongoing here for many years."
About 200 people have been detained in what ICE has called "Operation Catch of the Day" since it was launched earlier this month, and immigrant rights and mutual aid groups in Portland, Lewiston, and other cities have ramped up efforts to support the state's growing population of immigrants and asylum-seekers, including its Somali community, which includes many people who have become citizens since arriving in the US.
The administration said it had a list of more than 1,400 people in Maine it aimed to arrest—people it claimed were among the so-called "worst of the worst" violent criminals the White House wants to deport.
People abducted from their cars and homes in the state, however, include a corrections officer who was eligible to work in the US, a civil engineer on a work visa, a mother who was followed home by ICE agents and had a pending asylum application, and a father who was driving his wife and 1-month-old baby home from an appointment and whose car window was shattered by an agent, sending glass flying into the infant's car seat. None of those people had criminal records, according to background checks and attorneys.
Rep. Chellie Pingree (D-Maine) said that while the "visible federal presence" in Maine may be reduced following Collins' announcement, "it is important that people understand what we saw during this operation: Individuals who are legally allowed to be in the United States, whether by lawful presence or an authorized period of stay, following the rules, and being detained anyway.”
“That is not limited to this one operation," said Pingree. "That has been the pattern of this administration’s immigration enforcement over the past year, and there is no indication that policy has changed.”
Platner told local ABC News affiliate WMTW that Collins affirmed in her statement that "she still supports ICE operations, just not this expanded one. An agency that over the past week has abducted people that work for the sheriff's department, has abducted fathers bringing their newborn child home from the hospital, an agency that has murdered American citizens in the streets of Minneapolis."
"That is not an agency that has any welcome in Maine to conduct any operations," said Platner, who has spoken out in support of abolishing ICE, which was established in 2003.
Sen. Susan Collins said ICE has ended its enhanced operation in Maine. But Graham Platner, who is running for Collins' Senate seat, told @catemccusker that he will believe it when he sees it. https://t.co/7GL6qM3Bf6 pic.twitter.com/iE6O44Ok5t
— WMTW TV (@WMTWTV) January 29, 2026
Platner also emphasized in comments to the Maine Newsroom that Collins, who as the Senate Appropriations Committee chair has been working to pass spending bills to avert a government shutdown and has been fighting against a push to strip DHS funding out of the package, should not get credit for pushing ICE out of Maine, if the agency is actually retreating.
"When we do get ICE out of Maine, it's important for people to understand that that came from below, that came from power from organizers, from a mobilized population," said Platner. "It is that power that is going to push ICE out of Maine, and those in power, who have done nothing, are not the ones who get to take credit. The people of Maine get to take credit."
The government spending bills passed last week in the House with seven Democrats—including Rep. Jared Golden of Maine—supporting the DHS funding. The Senate needs to pass the package by the end of Friday to avoid a shutdown.
Portland City Council member April Fournier said the timing of Collins' announcement seemed "very convenient" for the senator, who is running for a sixth term.
"I take this with a grain of salt," said Fournier. "There's a very important budget vote today that Susan Collins will be a part of and there's a lot of pressure on her given all of these immigration operations, what's happened in Maine, what's happened in Minneapolis, and all over. She has a lot of pressure to decrease funding for ICE, and she has really put her line in the sand that she's not willing to do that."
Fournier added that Collins is "vulnerable" as the midterms approach, "so if she's able to somehow say, 'We got ICE out of Maine,' and then try and paint herself as the hero, I think that her political analysis of the situation is that will win her back some favor."
The council member noted that just over seven years ago, the senator assured voters that US Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh would not vote to overturn Roe v. Wade as she announced her vote to confirm him.
"I trust Susan Collins and her actions about as much as I trust thin ice in spring here in Maine," said Fournier.
"'In theater' is an expression that has no place anywhere within the United States," said one critic.
White House border czar Tom Homan on Thursday sparked alarm when he used terminology associated with overseas war to describe federal immigration operations taking place in Minnesota.
During a press briefing, Homan was asked about the number of US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agents operating in Minnesota.
"3,000," Homan replied. "There's been some rotations. Another thing I witnessed when I came here, I'll share this with you, I've met a lot of people, they've been in theater, some of them have been in theater for eight months. So there's going to be rotations of personnel."
Q: Can you be specific about how many ICE and Border Patrol agents are currently operating in the state?
HOMAN: 3,000. There's been some rotations. They've been in theater a long time. Day after day, can't eat in restaurants, people spin on you, blowing whistles at you. But my… pic.twitter.com/1Vz8mKYCAv
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) January 29, 2026
Typically terms such as "rotations" and "theater" are not used to describe domestic law enforcement operations, but overseas military deployments.
Many critics were quick to notice Homan's use of war jargon to describe actions being taken in a US city and said it was reflective of how the Trump administration sees itself as an occupying force in its own country.
"'In theater' like they're landing marines at Guadalcanal or something," wrote Aaron Fritschner, deputy chief of staff for Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.), in a post on X. "This stuff is happening in suburban American communities, that's where they're sending violent, masked invaders."
Northwestern University historian Kathleen Belew also expressed shock at Homan's rhetoric.
"'In theater' is an expression that has no place anywhere within the United States," she wrote on Bluesky. "'In theater' means in a war."
Andrew Lawrence, deputy director of rapid response as Media Matters, said Homan's war talk was "a crazy way to describe Minneapolis," while documentary filmmaker John Darwin Kurc described it as a "frightening characterization."
Shelby Edwards, a retired US Army major, also recognized the violent implications of Homan's words.
"Incredibly damaging how military language has infiltrated these agencies," she observed. "'In theater' is used for deployments into foreign nations, when we deploy soldiers we say things like this. This is America. This is an American agency assigned to an American city."