SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
democratic party
Join the Citizens' Movement to Impeach Tyrant Trump
He is a dangerously unstable, egomaniacal, eruptive personality, wielding the most lethal powers of anyone on Earth. He needs to go.
Apr 11, 2026
This week two events (1) the citizens’ “Expert Legal Symposium,” and (2) Rep. John Larson’s introduction on April 6, 2026 of House Resolution 1155 “Impeaching Donald J. Trump, President of the United States, for high crimes and misdemeanors in violation of his constitutional oath of office to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States” may spark the rise of citizen movement to impeach President Donald Trump. Already a majority want him out!
Rep. Larson (D-Conn.) is a mainstream Democrat serving his 14th term of office. The 13 articles in his H. Res 1155, drafted with constitutional law specialist Bruce Fein, portray the violations of the most lawless president in American history. Trump’s dictatorship is rapidly intensifying (though his support is dropping in the polls). Trump regularly boasts that “I can do whatever I want as president,” “Nothing can stop me,” and “This is only the beginning.”
Chronically lying Tyrant Trump is an open, clear, and present danger to our Republic. He is driven by a fact-deprived, perilous, megalomaniacal, and vengeful personality.
The citizens’ symposium, first of its kind held inside the House of Representatives, gathered experts and advocates for Trump’s removal from office to provide the legal case, highlighting three planks. They were:
- President Trump’s usurpation of the congressional war power;
- The credible fear that President Trump will obstruct, interfere with, or invoke the Insurrection Act to outright cancel the 2026 midterm elections; and
- Trump’s “industrial scale bribery and extortion.”
Audience questions following each panel expanded on the presentations. You can see the entire four-and-a-half hours on C-SPAN: https://www.c-span.org/program/public-affairs-event/activists-lawyers-and-others-discuss-possibility-of-additional-trump-impeachment-proceedings/677013.
Participants at the symposium exhibited a strong sense of urgency, not just from Trump’s escalating war crimes but from the lassitude of Congress, whose bipartisan leadership never considered canceling their two-week recess to address the burgeoning violent outlawry pouring from the White House, most prominently illegally blowing apart Iran and indirectly Lebanon.
The event was co-sponsored by Essential Information, RootsAction, and Free Speech for People with participants from Public Citizen and the Cato Institute.
The Republican Trump lapdogs continue to betray, with historic cowardliness, the people of America.
FOR TRUMP, IT IS ONLY GOING TO RAPIDLY GET WORSE, MUCH WORSE. The strongest critics of Trump can’t keep up with his onslaught, understating his foreign and domestic crimes. He is a dangerously unstable, egomaniacal, eruptive personality, wielding the most lethal powers of anyone on Earth.
Not receiving the Nobel Peace Prize, which he craves, by asserting falsely that he had ended eight wars since January 2025, Trump told the dumbfounded prime minister of Norway, “your Country decided not to give me the Nobel Peace Prize” so he no longer felt “an obligation to think purely of Peace.” That was Trump’s signal that he was going to be engaging in wars. What’s the street language here—a head case in the White House.
Trump constantly creates or fails to address catastrophes. Recall, his calling the climate crisis “a hoax,” that Covid-19 is just like getting a cold, losing valuable time in 2020, costing many American lives. Trump stereotypes journalists as “deranged and demented,” as he extorts millions of dollars from television networks via grossly malicious lawsuits.
The question is why 77.3 million voters support a man few would want as a friend, co-worker, or neighbor, much less a boss with the power of life, death, deprivation, and tyranny over them.
Having pardoned over 690 convicted violent criminals and additional fraudsters, he lets it be known that his loyal, extremist supporters can do what he wants and expect to be pardoned.
Credit Trump with teaching us how weak our democratic institutions are to thwart the US fascist dictatorship emerging from the 2024 election. He taught us, with luminous exceptions, that the media, the academic world, the legal profession, the labor unions, the retired military (brass who despise Trump and his norm-busting secretary of defense), and the civic community, among other constituencies, have not risen to the urgent need to counter tyrant Trump. He has issued one illegal executive order after another and then transgressed beyond those dictates in fits of fearsome rage.
He also reminds us that there has been a price to pay for pushing aside civic education, teaching civic history, skills, and providing students with “learning by doing” in their community or neighborhood. Decade after decade of vocational and rote teaching for multiple-choice testing ignores critical norms of moral restraint and accountability. No wonder they atrophy.
Two examples illustrate how low our standards have fallen. President Dwight D. Eisenhower’s chief of staff, Sherman Adams, a former governor of New Hampshire, had to resign after a press report that he accepted a vicuna coat as a gift from a textile industrialist friend. Later, in 1984, Sen. Gary Hart, competing for the Democratic presidential nomination against Vice President Walter Mondale, was photographed with a young lady—not his wife—on a small sailboat off Miami (he denied an affair). The norms of that time pushed him to quit the race.
Fast forward. Any one of Trump’s many vile transgressions would have stopped anyone from being a candidate, much less getting elected President. He is a daily chronic liar about serious matters and his business and political record as well as about people he dislikes; he is a convicted felon (and was under four criminal indictments); a draft dodger; a mocker of people with disabilities; serial adulterer; he consorted with pedophiles; he is an intense racist and brutal misogynist; and a business crook who cheats workers, consumers, and creditors. He openly committed many violations of federal statutes in his first term, when he also defied over 125 congressional subpoenas (Nixon was about to be impeached for defying two in 1973-1974); and he is an inciter of violence at his rallies and in his remarks. The list goes on.
The question is why 77.3 million voters support a man few would want as a friend, co-worker, or neighbor, much less a boss with the power of life, death, deprivation, and tyranny over them. That question is best answered by the so-called leaders of the Democratic Party, who, instead of landsliding this loser, this crusher of decency and truth, lost both the popular and electoral college presidential vote.
A mere switch of 240,000 votes in Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin in 2024 would have sent Trump back to golfing at Mar-a-Lago. That could have been achieved had the Democrats really championed raising the stagnant federal minimum wage to $15 per hour instead of the $7.25 per hour still today (that would help 25 million workers) and cracking down on corporate greedhounds stealing from consumers and lobbying against raising the Social Security benefits, frozen since 1971, paid for by raising the limit of Social Security taxes on higher income people (over 60 million people benefiting).
(For many more vote-getting compacts shunted aside by the dominant corporate Democrats and their corporate-conflicted consultants, see winningamerica.net).
Keep ReadingShow Less
DNC Half-Measures Condemning Dark Money Won’t Cut It, Says Sanders as He Demands Total Ban
"Billionaire-funded super PACs—AIPAC, AI, crypto, and others—are spending hundreds of millions to defeat any candidate who crosses them. They should be banned from Democratic primaries. Period."
Apr 10, 2026
Independent Sen. Bernie Sanders on Friday called for a total ban on dark money a day after the Democratic National Committee voted down a resolution that would have condemned the leading US pro-Israel lobby, which has spent nine figures on US elections over the past five years.
The DNC Resolutions Committee rejected the resolution, which condemned “the growing influence” of dark money and corporate-backed outside spending on Democratic races, specifically calling out the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee. United Democracy Project, AIPAC's dark money arm, unleashed a $100 million blitz targeting progressives during the 2024 election cycle.
When combined with other pro-Israel lobby groups, like GOP megadonor Miriam Adelson's Preserve America PAC, that figure soars to over $200 million, according to the public interest group AIPAC Tracker.
Instead, the DNC panel opted for a broader resolution decrying the influence of dark money—defined as undisclosed independent campaign contributions—in the 2026 Democratic primaries.
"The DNC just passed a resolution condemning dark money," Sanders (Vt.) said Friday on X. "That’s a start, but not enough."
"Billionaire-funded super PACs—AIPAC, AI, crypto, and others—are spending hundreds of millions to defeat any candidate who crosses them," the senator added. "They should be banned from Democratic primaries. Period."
Sanders campaigned twice for president, centering his opposition to the Supreme Court's 2010 Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling, which effectively ushered in the modern era of secret unlimited political spending.
According to the Brennan Center for Justice, dark money spending in federal elections has skyrocketed from negligible amounts before 2010 to over $1.9 billion in the 2024 cycle alone, with over $4 billion in total undisclosed outside financing following the high court's contentious ruling.
Polling has repeatedly affirmed that support for Israel—which stands accused in the International Court of Justice of committing genocide in Gaza and has already been found by the ICJ to be illegally occupying Palestine under apartheid rule—is detrimental to Democrats.
The DNC's own suppressed postmortem of the 2024 presidential election also showed that former President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris' unconditional support for Israel cost Harris votes.
As AIPAC has grown more toxic to US voters amid a litany of Israeli atrocities in Gaza and the West Bank under the government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu—who is wanted by the International Criminal Court for alleged crimes against humanity and war crimes in Gaza—a growing number of Democrats, including some who once welcomed the group's support, are turning their backs on the lobby.
“AIPAC really is not an organization that I think today I would want any part of," Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker said last month after affiliated groups poured $22 million into House races in his state.
While AIPAC cash was instrumental in unseating congressional progressives including former Reps. Jamaal Bowman (D-NY) and Cori Bush (D-Mo.), its largesse failed to oust others, including Reps. Summer Lee (D-Pa.), Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), and Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.).
Sanders wasn't the only one to criticize the DNC's rejection of the anti-AIPAC resolution.
“The American people are clear: They want our government to invest in life and stop funding the bombs that are destroying lives in Palestine, Lebanon, and Iran," Jewish Voice for Peace political director Beth Miller said Friday.
"The DNC’s failure to pass this simple resolution condemning the outsized spending of an extremist and Republican-funded group like AIPAC in Democratic primaries shows how wildly out of touch the party is with its base," Miller added.
Keep ReadingShow Less
We Need a Theory of Change That Recognizes the Democratic Establishment Has Been Doing It Wrong
Effective change begins with believing in what seems impossible now: that workers should have significant power in our government and in our economy.
Apr 10, 2026
Recently the political director of a major labor union reminded me that we need a theory of change to build a fairer and more just society. That challenge struck me as worth exploring. What theory of change do we need?
Let’s start with the No Kings mobilizations. The theory of change behind No Kings is to rally as many people as possible against President Donald Trump and inspire a huge turnout in November to take the House and Senate away from the Republicans. Control of Congress would at least slow down Trump’s attacks against immigrants and his assault on democratic norms. The No Kings theory of change is simple: Mass mobilization in the streets and at the polls = curtailing the Trump assault.
If successful, these efforts would provide critical relief to hard-working immigrants and put up some guard rails to protect democracy. But No Kings doesn’t directly deal with the broader problems that impact working people, especially job instability and the high costs of housing, healthcare, and education.
What Theory of Change Would Build a Better Economy for Working People?
Every theory of change has two major components: one is the substance of the change and the other is the political vehicle needed to achieve it.
A call for secure jobs at living wages also could lead to a reattachment of working people to politics—to a belief that building a better, more secure society is possible.
For me the the key substantive issue today is job instability. You’re nothing in our society if you can’t hold a job. Yet, over the last several decades we have allowed, as a society, tens of millions of workers to be tossed out of work due to no fault of their own. Stock buybacks, private equity, hedge funds, globalization, and new technologies have been destroying jobs at profitable and unprofitable companies alike. AI is likely to make it all worse.
Breaking Away From Corporate America’s Framework
To find solutions worthy of promotion we need to distinguish between people-centered and capital-centered frameworks. Right now, nearly all the discussion about the problems facing working people flow from a capital-centered perspective. That has led to reliance on financial incentives to encourage corporate job creation, as in the Inflation Reduction Act.
It also has led to thousands of subsidies costing billions of dollars provided by state and local governments to attract and maintain corporate investments to create more job opportunities.
Encouraging job creation in the private sector by subsidies and tax breaks leaves employment decisions to the corporation (unless constrained by strong collective bargaining agreements.) Hiring and firing are seen as sacrosanct corporate rights essential to a free society.
What About a Right to a Job?
A people-centered perspective, is very different. Consider:
Everyone who is willing and able to work should have the right to a job at a living wage. And if the private sector is unable to provide it, the public sector should.
This idea is so far outside of today’s corporate-centered framework, that it is dismissed out of hand. Won’t job guarantees lead to a bloated public sector causing taxes to rise through the roof? And what would these workers do?
To follow this path we have to change how we value public goods. Right now public infrastructure is starved for investment. Our roads, our bridges, our schools need repair. Our public transit systems are hobbled, the internet in many parts of the country is slow or nonexistent. We need more childcare workers, more teachers, more healthcare providers, and more workers to remediate our deteriorating environment. Sit down with any group of workers and they could make a list of all the work that needs doing. Clearly, the richest society in the history of the world can afford it.
But these public needs have been undermined by a pervasive corporate dogma that government is incapable of good works and that the private sector (which has been churning jobs) is the epitome of efficiency and productivity. Yet Social Security runs well and Medicare is far more efficient than private insurance. Charter schools have yet to prove to be more effective than public schools, and many public universities are every bit as good as private ones. Our libraries work efficiently and so do our emergency services.
Government can work well if we shift our framework from capital first, which abhors public funding, to people first.
A call for secure jobs at living wages also could lead to a reattachment of working people to politics—to a belief that building a better, more secure society is possible. Add in Medicare for All, affordable housing, help with childcare costs, and free higher and vocational education, and we have the makings of a compelling people-first political platform.
How Do We Get There?
For most progressives, the Democratic Party is the one and only vehicle. The goal is to reform it (realignment) by running more candidates like Bernie, AOC, the Squad, and Mandami, as well as a new crop of working-class oriented candidates like Graham Platner in Maine, and James Talerico in Texas.
It’s heartening to see so many working-class candidates take up the reins and run this year. Realignment through working-class candidates has been badly needed. These efforts, we hope, will prove to the party apparatus that waitresses, union leaders, electricians, flight attendants, and even oystermen can run and win. The goal would be to have these worker-oriented candidates become the future leaders of the Democratic Party, forming a bloc that is powerful enough to return the Democrats to their working-class roots.
Going Independent?
But in this difficult moment, realignment is not enough—we also need an outside, independent strategy to credibly compete in places the Democratic Party has abandoned, and where working people have abandoned the Party.
As we found in our survey of 3,000 Midwestern voters, 70% had negative views of the Democrats, and from the get-go a Democratic candidate faces an 8% deficit in voter support when running against an independent while saying exactly the same things.
To reach these working people, we need independent working-class candidates running on a people-first platform like Dan Osborn is doing in Nebraska. The only way he can win against a wealthy Republican incumbent is to distance himself from both parties—escaping what he calls “the two-party doom loop.”
If independent working-class candidates can win, there should be a knock-on effect for reforming the Democratic Party. The outside competition, free from party labels and corporate money, could pressure Democrats to field more working-class candidates.
But say the word “independent” to many union members and they often say something like, “We have to back those who back us—the Dems.” Or as another labor leader told me, “They’re the only friends we have.”
Some also equate “independent” with “spoiler”—a fringe counterproductive effort that takes votes away from the Democrats and elects Republicans.
But, the union political director who prompted this article hit the nail on the head:
This strategy, whether they like it or not, is oriented on realigning the Democratic Party, not acting entirely outside of it. This is a needed one, but not wholly sufficient for the scale of the political crisis in front of us. And the reality is that an increasing number of working-class people do not feel at home in either version of two-party duopoly. But the losses Dems have faced in the industrial Midwest, the South, etc. require both realignment AND independent brute force in order to reclaim our values. It has to be both/and!
A closer look at the country’s political landscape shows 130 US House districts in which the Democrats consistently lose by 25% or more. In those districts there is no Democratic Party to spoil. Instead, these areas could become the proving ground for developing independent working-class candidates under the banner of “Not Red, Not Blue: I’m a Working-Class Independent!”
The Baked-In Ideological Resistance
Why does the Democratic Party need so much pushing and cajoling? Why isn’t it already recruiting hundreds of working-class candidates?
It’s their mindset. The Democrats, from the high officials to the funders, from the consultants to the pollsters, from the candidates to their PR firms—all are stuck in the capital-first framework. Yes, they want to raise taxes on the billionaires and stop the Immigration and Customs Enforcement attacks on immigrants. And yes, they would like to add resources to Obamacare, protect women’s rights, promote better climate policies. All that’s to the good.
But when it comes to challenging the job-destructive behavior of corporate America, their knees knock. Some, but not all the corporate-friendly attitudes come from the need for campaign funds and from having an eye out for future lucrative jobs for themselves, their families, and friends once out of office.
Real change that empowers working people requires an independent electoral strategy that challenges the Democratic Party establishment.
But corporate Democrats also believe that private capital is the engine of prosperity and employment. They see no inherent conflict between labor and capital. Grow the pie and all can prosper. Make sure that everyone has the opportunity to succeed, without discrimination, and that’s fair enough—the procedural essence of equality.
If we dig down deeper, I think most Democratic officials believe that the super rich deserve what they have earned, reaping the rewards of their hard work and talents. In their eyes it is simply insane to suggest that every worker should have a right to a job at a living wage—provided by government if necessary. Make that argument and they will look at you with pity, thinking you are a lost soul living in a fantasy world.
The Populists of the 19th Century
That fantasy world looked very real during the 1880s and 1890s when the Populist movement—the progressive kind—developed a vision that captured the imagination of millions of workers and farmers. Robber barons had control of the shipping, finance, farm machinery, and crop storage, at the time, driving farmers and industrial workers deeper and deeper into peonage.
The Populists responded with a new vision of a cooperative commonwealth with public ownership of railroads, banks, and grain elevators. And they didn’t just dream about it; they formed hundreds of cooperatives that bound these working people together in common enterprises to improve their lives. They also took their crusade into politics, changing the country for decades to come. Depending on their location they ran as Democrats, as Republicans, and as third-party independents, winning thousands of elections.
Although the movement was eventually defeated as a national party, its state and local victories paved the way for the regulation of corporate America during the Progressive era, the establishment of the progressive income tax, and for the economic enhancement of farmers and workers during the New Deal.
We have a long way to go to catch up with the theory of change that gave the Populists so much influence.
But that theory of change is still alive. It starts with believing in what seems impossible now: that workers should have significant power in our government and in our economy.
There’s no way around it. Real change that empowers working people requires an independent electoral strategy that challenges the Democratic Party establishment, even if doing so makes people uncomfortable.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular