

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.

Impeachment supporters rally outside the White House. (Photo: Shutterstock)
"Has Trump finally gone too far?" There's a headline you've seen a thousand times.
At last, Speaker Nancy Pelosi says he has. A whistleblower says Trump withheld foreign aid to Ukraine to pressure the country's new president into investigating Joe Biden's son Hunter's past business there. Trump doesn't even really deny it.
Pelosi has long resisted calls for impeachment, to the chagrin of more progressive lawmakers and activists. But the latest revelations finally brought a cavalcade of more centrist party figures around on the issue.
If true, of course, Trump's conduct was patently corrupt. "If the president used his office to get a foreign government to investigate a political rival, with an eye toward undermining that rival, that's a clear abuse of power that assaults the basic premises of American democracy," explains The Nation's John Nichols.
But I admit I'm puzzled -- not about why Trump's behavior here was bad, but why this was the offense that got so many reluctant Democrats to stick their neck out.
There's been any number of earlier abuses -- from the merely venal (like altering a hurricane forecast with a sharpie) to the unapologetically corrupt (like putting military officers in Trump hotels and charging taxpayers for vacations at his own properties).
I also recall there was something about Russia, a fired FBI director, and -- oh right -- that time he called Nazis who'd just beaten people and killed someone in Charlottesville "very fine people."
At every juncture, and countless others, pundits wondered whether this was the last straw, only to have a fresh truckload delivered the next day. (In fact, the Trump campaign now makes a killing selling Trump-branded plastic straws, to trigger the sea turtles I guess.)
To me the Ukraine-Biden gambit looks like a lot of other things Trump has accustomed us to expect from him. Is there some deep reservoir of public affection for Biden or Ukraine that Democrats feel they can draw on to get their case across this time? It seems unlikely.
The fact that we've grown desensitized to such abuses could itself be the best reason to finally prosecute one. But truthfully, there are about a thousand other things I'd rather see lawmakers build a case around.
For instance, after taking buckets of fossil fuel money, the president rolled back power plant emissions limits, launched legal action against automakers who agreed to increase their fuel efficiency, and wants us out of the Paris climate agreement. He's repeatedly censored government climate scientists to cover his tracks.
Is destroying the planet impeachable?
What about caging thousands of children, or continuing to separate them from their parents after a court ordered him to stop? Or openly violating U.S. and international law on the treatment of refugees? Or allegedly encouraging border officials to break the law, with the promise of pardons?
Speaking of attacking rivals, what about tweeting incendiary racist slanders against Reps. Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib, and other progressive women of color, all but openly encouraging extremist violence against them?
What about encouraging a foreign leader, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, to block those members of Congress from an official visit to the top U.S. aid recipient?
Impeachment is as much a political tool as a legal one. If Democrats feel they need the Ukraine story as a legal hook to start the process, that's one thing -- but I hope they won't forget to make a political case against these much more egregious abuses along the way.
Otherwise they risk sending the message that the worst thing a president can do isn't to attack the people or the planet, but a fellow elite.
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
"Has Trump finally gone too far?" There's a headline you've seen a thousand times.
At last, Speaker Nancy Pelosi says he has. A whistleblower says Trump withheld foreign aid to Ukraine to pressure the country's new president into investigating Joe Biden's son Hunter's past business there. Trump doesn't even really deny it.
Pelosi has long resisted calls for impeachment, to the chagrin of more progressive lawmakers and activists. But the latest revelations finally brought a cavalcade of more centrist party figures around on the issue.
If true, of course, Trump's conduct was patently corrupt. "If the president used his office to get a foreign government to investigate a political rival, with an eye toward undermining that rival, that's a clear abuse of power that assaults the basic premises of American democracy," explains The Nation's John Nichols.
But I admit I'm puzzled -- not about why Trump's behavior here was bad, but why this was the offense that got so many reluctant Democrats to stick their neck out.
There's been any number of earlier abuses -- from the merely venal (like altering a hurricane forecast with a sharpie) to the unapologetically corrupt (like putting military officers in Trump hotels and charging taxpayers for vacations at his own properties).
I also recall there was something about Russia, a fired FBI director, and -- oh right -- that time he called Nazis who'd just beaten people and killed someone in Charlottesville "very fine people."
At every juncture, and countless others, pundits wondered whether this was the last straw, only to have a fresh truckload delivered the next day. (In fact, the Trump campaign now makes a killing selling Trump-branded plastic straws, to trigger the sea turtles I guess.)
To me the Ukraine-Biden gambit looks like a lot of other things Trump has accustomed us to expect from him. Is there some deep reservoir of public affection for Biden or Ukraine that Democrats feel they can draw on to get their case across this time? It seems unlikely.
The fact that we've grown desensitized to such abuses could itself be the best reason to finally prosecute one. But truthfully, there are about a thousand other things I'd rather see lawmakers build a case around.
For instance, after taking buckets of fossil fuel money, the president rolled back power plant emissions limits, launched legal action against automakers who agreed to increase their fuel efficiency, and wants us out of the Paris climate agreement. He's repeatedly censored government climate scientists to cover his tracks.
Is destroying the planet impeachable?
What about caging thousands of children, or continuing to separate them from their parents after a court ordered him to stop? Or openly violating U.S. and international law on the treatment of refugees? Or allegedly encouraging border officials to break the law, with the promise of pardons?
Speaking of attacking rivals, what about tweeting incendiary racist slanders against Reps. Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib, and other progressive women of color, all but openly encouraging extremist violence against them?
What about encouraging a foreign leader, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, to block those members of Congress from an official visit to the top U.S. aid recipient?
Impeachment is as much a political tool as a legal one. If Democrats feel they need the Ukraine story as a legal hook to start the process, that's one thing -- but I hope they won't forget to make a political case against these much more egregious abuses along the way.
Otherwise they risk sending the message that the worst thing a president can do isn't to attack the people or the planet, but a fellow elite.
"Has Trump finally gone too far?" There's a headline you've seen a thousand times.
At last, Speaker Nancy Pelosi says he has. A whistleblower says Trump withheld foreign aid to Ukraine to pressure the country's new president into investigating Joe Biden's son Hunter's past business there. Trump doesn't even really deny it.
Pelosi has long resisted calls for impeachment, to the chagrin of more progressive lawmakers and activists. But the latest revelations finally brought a cavalcade of more centrist party figures around on the issue.
If true, of course, Trump's conduct was patently corrupt. "If the president used his office to get a foreign government to investigate a political rival, with an eye toward undermining that rival, that's a clear abuse of power that assaults the basic premises of American democracy," explains The Nation's John Nichols.
But I admit I'm puzzled -- not about why Trump's behavior here was bad, but why this was the offense that got so many reluctant Democrats to stick their neck out.
There's been any number of earlier abuses -- from the merely venal (like altering a hurricane forecast with a sharpie) to the unapologetically corrupt (like putting military officers in Trump hotels and charging taxpayers for vacations at his own properties).
I also recall there was something about Russia, a fired FBI director, and -- oh right -- that time he called Nazis who'd just beaten people and killed someone in Charlottesville "very fine people."
At every juncture, and countless others, pundits wondered whether this was the last straw, only to have a fresh truckload delivered the next day. (In fact, the Trump campaign now makes a killing selling Trump-branded plastic straws, to trigger the sea turtles I guess.)
To me the Ukraine-Biden gambit looks like a lot of other things Trump has accustomed us to expect from him. Is there some deep reservoir of public affection for Biden or Ukraine that Democrats feel they can draw on to get their case across this time? It seems unlikely.
The fact that we've grown desensitized to such abuses could itself be the best reason to finally prosecute one. But truthfully, there are about a thousand other things I'd rather see lawmakers build a case around.
For instance, after taking buckets of fossil fuel money, the president rolled back power plant emissions limits, launched legal action against automakers who agreed to increase their fuel efficiency, and wants us out of the Paris climate agreement. He's repeatedly censored government climate scientists to cover his tracks.
Is destroying the planet impeachable?
What about caging thousands of children, or continuing to separate them from their parents after a court ordered him to stop? Or openly violating U.S. and international law on the treatment of refugees? Or allegedly encouraging border officials to break the law, with the promise of pardons?
Speaking of attacking rivals, what about tweeting incendiary racist slanders against Reps. Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib, and other progressive women of color, all but openly encouraging extremist violence against them?
What about encouraging a foreign leader, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, to block those members of Congress from an official visit to the top U.S. aid recipient?
Impeachment is as much a political tool as a legal one. If Democrats feel they need the Ukraine story as a legal hook to start the process, that's one thing -- but I hope they won't forget to make a political case against these much more egregious abuses along the way.
Otherwise they risk sending the message that the worst thing a president can do isn't to attack the people or the planet, but a fellow elite.