

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.
Diane Alexander, dalexander@democracy21.org
Democracy 21 President Fred Wertheimer released a statement today supporting the passage of the two Articles of Impeachment approved by the House Judiciary Committee and scheduled to be voted on by the full House this week.
The Wertheimer statement concluded:
Democracy 21 President Fred Wertheimer released a statement today supporting the passage of the two Articles of Impeachment approved by the House Judiciary Committee and scheduled to be voted on by the full House this week.
The Wertheimer statement concluded:
The statement continued:In engaging in these activities, President Trump violated a cardinal principle that is fundamental to our democracy, our constitutional system of government and our sacred right to vote: Only Americans are permitted to participate in and decide our elections, not foreign countries, and not foreign interests. Period. No exceptions.
President Trump, however, personally and directly solicited a foreign country to interfere in our presidential election to benefit his personal political interests.
This was a frontal attack on our democracy.
The record is irrefutable that President Trump engaged in impeachable actions as set forth in Article I of the Impeachment Articles.The statement said:The President also directly attacked and engaged in obstruction of the impeachment powers provided to Congress in Article I of the Constitution.
Trump ordered his entire Administration to refuse to cooperate with the House impeachment inquiry. He directed Executive Branch agencies and officials to ignore subpoenas, refuse to testify and refuse to turn over any documents to Congress regarding the House impeachment inquiry. The President even directed private citizens who are no longer in government to refuse to cooperate with the proceeding. (Fortunately for the country, a number of courageous public servants defied his order to ignore congressional subpoenas and testified before the House Intelligence Committee.)The Wertheimer statement said:The conduct of President Trump in the Ukraine affair flagrantly contradicted our democratic norms and values and attacked the integrity of our elections. President Trump's actions cannot be allowed to stand unchallenged, since failing to formally do so would establish the actions as precedents for future conduct and be used to validate future attempts by Trump to rig the 2020 elections.
The President must be held formally accountable by the House, regardless of what the Senate does.Read the full statement below or here.
Passage of Impeachment Articles is Essential to Holding President Trump Accountable for Gross Abuse of His Powers and Violation of His Oath
Statement of Democracy 21 President Fred Wertheimer
Democracy 21 supports the passage of the two Articles of Impeachment approved by the House Judiciary Committee and scheduled to be voted on by the full House this week. Passage of the Articles is essential to holding President Trump accountable for his gross abuse of his presidential powers and for violation of his oath of office.
Contrary to the President's absurd claim, Article II of the Constitution does not give him "the right to do whatever I want as president." The Founders established the powers of Congress first, in Article I, for a reason. They gave Congress the constitutional right to oversee the President and executive branch and to remove the President from office for impeachable offenses.
The evidence presented in the House impeachment inquiry, including testimony by courageous public servants, is essentially uncontroverted and establishes beyond any reasonable doubt that the President's wrongful conduct warrants his impeachment.
The starting point in this case is the President's obvious goal: he wanted the President of Ukraine to announce a corruption investigation of Joe Biden in order to damage Biden's chances of defeating Trump in the 2020 presidential election. Biden has been leading in national polls to be the Democratic nominee to oppose Trump in the 2020 presidential election.
In other words, Trump wanted a foreign country to intervene in our elections in order to damage a political opponent and thereby serve Trump's personal political benefit. All of the events at issue flowed from Trump's goal of using a foreign country to inflict political harm on a political opponent.
Trump withheld a White House meeting and $400 million in military assistance appropriated by Congress and desperately needed by our ally Ukraine to defend itself from a military incursion by our adversary, Russia. At the same time, in what amounts to extortion, Trump pressured Ukraine President Zelensky to announce a corruption investigation of Biden. Trump engaged his personal attorney Rudy Giuliani, European Union Ambassador Gordon Sondland and others to help carry out his goal.
Trump was clearly holding military assistance to Ukraine and a White House meeting hostage until Ukraine "paid" Trump with the Biden corruption investigation in order to get those important benefits freed up.
In a moment of candor, the President's own White House chief of staff, Mick Mulvaney, stated that the Trump's actions involved a "quid pro quo" effort by the President to obtain the Biden investigation he sought. Although Mulvaney later tried to walk back his claim, the die had been cast in his original comment.
Sondland, operating as President Trump's agent to obtain the Biden investigation, also described the withholding of a White House meeting and military assistance as a "quid pro quo" effort by Trump to get President Zelensky to announce the Biden corruption investigation.
Trump released the military assistance to Ukraine only after the whistleblower complaint unleashed an impeachment inquiry, although Ukraine still hasn't received all of the funds appropriated by Congress.
It is beyond question that Trump wanted to damage a potentially strong opponent in the 2020 presidential election and that he used the powers of the presidency to try to achieve this result.
In short, Trump used the presidency to attempt to rig the 2020 presidential election for his personal political benefit.
It is also clear that the President's efforts to accomplish this went far beyond his one phone call to President Zelensky on July 25 requesting "a favor," but instead was an ongoing effort over a period of months to get Ukraine to announce a corruption investigation of Biden. It is questionable whether Trump even cared if the investigation was ever carried out, since all he needed politically was the ability to say that Biden was under investigation for corruption.
Trump's campaign to get a corruption investigation of Biden involved:
In engaging in these activities, President Trump violated a cardinal principle that is fundamental to our democracy, our constitutional system of government and our sacred right to vote: Only Americans are permitted to participate in and decide our elections, not foreign countries, and not foreign interests. Period. No exceptions.
President Trump, however, personally and directly solicited a foreign country to interfere in our presidential election to benefit his personal political interests.
This was a frontal attack on our democracy.
The record is irrefutable that President Trump engaged in impeachable actions as set forth in Article I of the Impeachment Articles.
The President also directly attacked and engaged in obstruction of the impeachment powers provided to Congress in Article I of the Constitution.
Trump ordered his entire Administration to refuse to cooperate with the House impeachment inquiry. He directed Executive Branch agencies and officials to ignore subpoenas, refuse to testify and refuse to turn over any documents to Congress regarding the House impeachment inquiry. The President even directed private citizens who are no longer in government to refuse to cooperate with the proceeding. (Fortunately for the country, a number of courageous public servants defied his order to ignore congressional subpoenas and testified before the House Intelligence Committee.)
According to Impeachment Article II, President Trump "sought to arrogate to himself the right to determine the propriety, scope, and nature of an impeachment inquiry into his own conduct, as well as the unilateral prerogative to deny any and all information to the" House. Impeachment Article II states that "In the history of the Republic, no President has ever ordered the complete defiance of an impeachment inquiry."
The conduct of President Trump in the Ukraine affair flagrantly contradicted our democratic norms and values and attacked the integrity of our elections. President Trump's actions cannot be allowed to stand unchallenged, since failing to formally do so would establish the actions as precedents for future conduct and be used to validate future attempts by Trump to rig the 2020 elections.
The President must be held formally accountable by the House, regardless of what the Senate does.
It is incumbent on the House of Representatives to renounce and reject President Trump's irresponsible, indefensible, un-American, unpatriotic actions by passing Article I and Article II of the Articles of Impeachment.
The House must affirm that President Trump is unfit to serve as President.
Democracy 21 is a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization dedicated to making democracy work for all Americans. Democracy 21, and its education arm, Democracy 21 Education Fund, work to eliminate the undue influence of big money in American politics, prevent government corruption, empower citizens in the political process and ensure the integrity and fairness of government decisions and elections. The organization promotes campaign finance reform and other related political reforms to accomplish these goals.
(202) 355-9600"This is our God: Jesus, King of Peace, who rejects war, whom no one can use to justify war."
Pope Leo XIV used his Palm Sunday sermon to take what appears to be a shot at US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.
In his sermon, excerpts of which he published on social media, the pope emphasized Christian teachings against violence while criticizing anyone who would invoke Jesus Christ to justify a war.
"This is our God: Jesus, King of Peace, who rejects war, whom no one can use to justify war," Pope Leo said. "He does not listen to the prayers of those who wage war, but rejects them."
The pope also encouraged followers to "raise our prayers to the Prince of Peace so that he may support people wounded by war and open concrete paths of reconciliation and peace."
While speaking at the Pentagon last week, Hegseth directly invoked Jesus when discussing the Trump administration's unprovoked and unconstitutional war with Iran.
Specifically, Hegseth offered up a prayer in which he asked God to give US soldiers "wisdom in every decision, endurance for the trial ahead, unbreakable unity, and overwhelming violence of action against those who deserve no mercy," adding that "we ask these things with bold confidence in the mighty and powerful name of Jesus Christ."
Mother Jones contributing writer Alex Nguyen described the pope's sermon as a "rebuke" of Hegseth, whom he noted "has been open about his support for a Christian crusade" in the Middle East.
Pope Leo is not the only Catholic leader speaking against using Christian faith to justify wars of aggression. Two weeks ago, Cardinal Pierbattista Pizzaballa, the Latin patriarch of Jerusalem, said "the abuse and manipulation of God’s name to justify this and any other war is the gravest sin we can commit at this time."
“War is first and foremost political and has very material interests, like most wars," Cardinal Pizzaballa added.
"Trump’s problem is that whatever the claims he might make about the damage to Iran’s nuclear and military capacity, which is substantial, the regime survives, the international economy has been severely disrupted, and the bills keep on coming in."
President Donald Trump is reportedly preparing to launch some kind of ground assault on Iran in the coming weeks, but one prominent military strategy expert believes he's heading straight for defeat.
The Washington Post on Saturday reported that the Pentagon is preparing for "weeks" of ground operations in Iran, which for the last month has disrupted global energy markets by shutting down the Strait of Hormuz in response to aerial assaults by the US and Israel.
The Post's sources revealed that "any potential ground operation would fall short of a full-scale invasion and could instead involve raids by a mixture of Special Operations forces and conventional infantry troops" that could be used to seize Kharg Island, a key Iranian oil export hub, or to search out and destroy weapons systems that could be used by the Iranians to target ships along the strait.
Michael Eisenstadt, director of the Military and Security Studies Program at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, told the Post that taking over Kharg Island would be a highly risky operation for American troops, even if initially successful.
“I just wouldn’t want to be in that small place with Iran’s ability to rain down drones and maybe artillery,” said Eisenstadt.
Eisenstadt's analysis was echoed by Ret. Gen. Joseph Votel, former head of US Central Command, who told ABC News that seizing and occupying Kharg Island would put US troops in a state of constant danger, warning they could be "very, very vulnerable" to drones and missiles launched from the shore.
Lawrence Freedman, professor emeritus of war studies at King's College London, believes that the president has already checkmated himself regardless of what shape any ground operation takes.
In an analysis published Sunday, Freedman declared Trump had run "out of options" for victory, as there have been no signs of the Iranian regime crumbling due to US-Israeli attacks.
Freedman wrote that Trump now "appears to inhabit an alternative reality," noting that "his utterances have become increasingly incoherent, with contradictory statements following quickly one after the other, and frankly delusional claims."
Trump's loan real option at this point, Freedman continued, would to simply declare that he had achieved an unprecedented victory and just walk away. But even in that case, wrote Freedman, "this would mean leaving behind a mess in the Gulf" with no guarantee that Iran would re-open the Strait of Hormuz.
"Success in war is judged not by damage caused but by political objectives realized," Freedman wrote in his conclusion. "Here the objective was regime change, or at least the emergence of a new compliant leader... Trump’s problem is that whatever the claims he might make about the damage to Iran’s nuclear and military capacity, which is substantial, the regime survives, the international economy has been severely disrupted, and the bills keep on coming in."
"The NY Times saves its harshest skepticism for progressives," said one critic.
The New York Times is drawing criticism for publishing articles that downplayed the significance of Saturday's No Kings protests, which initial estimates suggest was the largest protest event in US history.
In a Times article that drew particular ire, reporter Jeremy Peters questioned whether nationwide events that drew an estimated 8 million people to the streets "would be enough to influence the course of the nation’s politics."
"Can the protests harness that energy and turn it into victories in the November midterm elections?" Peters asked rhetorically. "How can they avoid a primal scream that fades into a whimper?"
Journalist and author Mark Harris called Peters' take on the protests "predictable" and said it was framed so that the protests would appear insignificant no matter how many people turned out.
"There's a long, bad journalistic tradition," noted Harris. "All conservative grass-roots political movements are fascinating heartland phenomena, all progressive grass-roots political movements are ineffectual bleating. This one is written off as powered by white female college grads—the wine-moms slur, basically."
Media critic Dan Froomkin was event blunter in his criticism of the Peters piece.
"Putting anti-woke hack Jeremy Peters on this story is an act of war by the NYT against No Kings," he wrote.
Mark Jacob, former metro editor at the Chicago Tribune, also took a hatchet to Peters' analysis.
"The NY Times saves its harshest skepticism for progressives," he wrote. "Instead of being impressed by 3,000-plus coordinated protests, NYT dismisses the value of 'hitting a number' and asks if No Kings will be 'a primal scream that fades into a whimper.' F off, NY Times. We'll defeat fascism without you."
The Media and Democracy Project slammed the Times for putting Peters' analysis of the protests on its front page while burying straight news coverage of the events on page A18.
"NYT editors CHOSE that Jeremy Peters's opinions would frame the No Kings demonstrations and pro-democracy movement to millions of NYT readers," the group commented.
Joe Adalian, west coast editor for New York Mag's Vulture, criticized a Times report on the No Kings demonstrations that quoted a "skeptic" of the protests without noting that said skeptic was the chairman of the Ole Miss College Republicans.
"Of course, the Times doesn’t ID him as such," remarked Adalian. "He's just a Concerned Youth."
Jeff Jarvis, professor emeritus at the CUNY Graduate School of Journalism, took issue with a Times piece that offered five "takeaways" from the No Kings events that somehow managed to miss their broader significance.
"I despise the five-takeaways journalistic trope the Broken Times loves so," Jarvis wrote. "It is reductionist, hubristic in its claim to summarize any complex event. This one leaves out much, like the defense of democracy against fascism."
Journalist Miranda Spencer took stock of the Times' entire coverage of the No Kings demonstrations and declared it "clueless," while noting that USA Today did a far better job of communicating their significance to readers.
Harper's Magazine contributing editor Scott Horton similarly argued that international news organizations were giving the No Kings events more substantive coverage than the Times.
"In Le Monde and dozens of serious newspapers around the world, prominent coverage of No Kings 3, which brought millions of Americans on to the streets to protest Trump," Horton observed. "In NYT, an illiterate rant from Jeremy W Peters and no meaningful coverage of the protests. Something very strange going on here."